Although this is not in relation to the U.S. Supreme Court, I found this topic relevant and interesting with many parallels to the U.S. judicial system. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government is pushing for changes to limit their Supreme Court’s power to rule against the legislature and executive branch. The changes would allocate to lawmakers decisive powers in appointing judges. This is not a wise move on behalf of the Israeli government, one which already has relatively weak checks and balances. The Supreme Court would lose much of their already limited authority and allow the legislative and executive branches to have near complete unchecked power. Once again arises the issue of courts being unbiased and not encroaching into the political sphere, which is what advocates of the reform are repeating. But how do we go about enforcing fair checks and balances while also ensuring each branch is operating in their truest form with good intentions? That question is still yet to be answered around the world.
You mentioned that “I found this topic relevant and interesting with many parallels to the U.S. judicial system.” Not only is comparative constitutionalism valuable because it forces us to examine our own legal norms (as you just mentioned of course), but there are many scholars who believe that the jurisprudence of apex court judges from different nations is influenced by their meetings with judges from other countries. See, for example, a Ph.D. thesis entitled “The Transnational Judicial Dialogue of the Supreme Court of Canada and its Impact “(https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=phd).
I agree with your points. This is also very worrying to me for what it means for Palestinians. Following this change, Israel has already passed a law a making it even easier to revoke citizenship and residency of Palestinians in Israel and occupied West Bank.