Alberto decides to ignore the Supreme Court

[Redpossum]

meanwhile on pagina12 their strategy is to try and justify that there have been plenty of "breaches" of not following decisions in the past, like this is no big deal. what a strategy!

To play Devil's Advocate here, this is a matter of law, and in law precedent is an issue of major importance.

 

[sts7049]

precedent applies to the actual court decision, not to how the parties want to react to them

 

[Bajo_cero2]

One word: Sedition

It is the SC that is subversive to the Federal Powers. Federal autorities can ignore unconstitutional decisions of any of the other 2 powers according to art. 3 of Federal Law 27.
I didn’t read yet the decision.

 

[Redpossum]

It is the SC that is subversive to the Federal Powers. Federal autorities can ignore unconstitutional decisions of any of the other 2 powers according to art. 3 of Federal Law 27.
I didn’t read yet the decision.

Thank you, Bajo

It seems the rest of us were making assumptions about Argentina, based upon what we know about the USA. Which is something we Americans tend to do fairly often.

 

[sts7049]

so then the key word is "unconstitutional".

as i stated previously, i am trying to keep an open mind but i have a hard time believing what the K's are trying to sell here. it's not about what i know from the USA, but if bajo is saying that the feds can ignore "any" unconstitutional decision that means the feds are who define the constitutional interpretations, not the SC? that makes no sense. and then i question why are the K's then trying so hard to pack the courts if they can just ignore whatever they believe is unconstitutional?

 

[nikad]

It is the SC that is subversive to the Federal Powers. Federal autorities can ignore unconstitutional decisions of any of the other 2 powers according to art. 3 of Federal Law 27.
I didn’t read yet the decision.

Federal authorities cannot ignore and disobey Supreme Court rulings. Time and future criminal rulings will prove you wrong. Law and justice are not valid when they benefit you, in democracy they are always valid and it is the separation of the three powers what guarantees that we live in a republic. Anything other than that is sedition. Do not let political affiliation blind you. Democracy or dictatorship, you chose. Not even Videla disobeyed the SC. I have yet to hear a constitutionalist lawyer say that the SC ruling is unconstitutional.

 

[El manolo]

Federal authorities cannot ignore and disobey Supreme Court rulings. Time and future criminal rulings will prove you wrong. Law and justice are not valid when they benefit you, in democracy they are always valid and it is the separation of the three powers what guarantees that we live in a republic. Anything other than that is sedition. Do not let political affiliation blind you. Democracy or dictatorship, you chose. Not even Videla disobeyed the SC. I have yet to hear a constitutionalist lawyer say that the SC ruling is unconstitutional.

I am 100% agree with what you said. Lus semper loquitur! But Bajo_cero2 stated he hasn't read the ruling yet, so he didn't say it's unconstitutional. I doubt a Judge of any SC in any country will make any unconstitutional decision. If they do, they are clearly not qualified to be a judge a first. If Art. 3 of the Gederal Law 27 is states what Bajo_cero2 says, this means we are living in a Banana Republic. That's totally opposed "The Spirit of the Law" of Montesquieu and implies the executive branch has more power than the others. What the government has to consider is: they only have a few months left in Power. As the SC is the highest level in the hierarchy, even if their decision was unconstitutional, where the government would make an appeal ??? It's total caos, and we are in a lambo! A banana Republic.
In the USA, a federal Judge can block an executive order, let's not even mention the SC.

 

[nikad]

I am 100% agree with what you said. Lus semper loquitur! But Bajo_cero2 stated he hasn't read the ruling yet, so he didn't say it's unconstitutional. I doubt a Judge of any SC in any country will make any unconstitutional decision. If they do, they are clearly not qualified to be a judge a first. If Art. 3 of the Gederal Law 27 is states what Bajo_cero2 says, this means we are living in a Banana Republic. That's totally opposed "The Spirit of the Law" of Montesquieu and implies the executive branch has more power than the others. What the government has to consider is: they only have a few months left in Power. As the SC is the highest level in the hierarchy, even if their decision was unconstitutional, where the government would make an appeal ??? It's total caos, and we are in a lambo! A banana Republic.
In the USA, a federal Judge can block an executive order, let's not even mention the SC.

I am not sure where they will actually disregard the SC, this is all extremely dangerous to both democracy and stability. AF is starting to look more and more like Castillo in Peru. Sad and worrisome.

 

[antipodean]

U-turn from Alberto. He will now comply with the court ruling even though he may disagree with it.

Looks like the circus-clown finally passed law 101 or realised, after "testing the water", that acting like a Chavista/ Castillista won't end well for him in an Argentine context ...

 

[nikad]

U-turn from Alberto. He will now comply with the court ruling even though he may disagree with it.

Looks like the circus-clown finally passed law 101 or realised, after "testing the water", that acting like a Chavista/ Castillista won't end well for him in an Argentine context ...

Because of this nonsense he was asked to resign as a Professor at UBA Law School... It is beyond embarrassing what AF has been doing lately. He should get better advice.