Alberto decides to ignore the Supreme Court

[sts7049]

just when you think there couldn't be more political drama, alberto gives us this wonderful christmas gift

Coparticipación: Alberto Fernández no acatará el fallo de la Corte y JxC lo denunciará por sedición | TN

El Presidente decidió no restituirle a la Ciudad el punto de coparticipación que le quitó, pese a la orden del máximo tribunal. Rodríguez Larreta le responderá este viernes en una conferencia de prensa.

tn.com.ar

is he setting himself up for impeachment? i tried reading their justification with an open mind, but, it just comes off as whining about how they would have to rework the budget and that's unfair.

either way, this sets some dangerous precedents.

 

[elhombresinnombre]

Is it worth mentioning that the Argentine Supreme Court decision was delivered on Wednesday and as far as I know, nobody said very much about it at the time?

Meanwhile, one day later, on Thursday, the Supreme Court of Switzerland has affirmed Swiss Banks' actions to continue to freeze assets of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner but Argentina is now talking about yesterday's news. Quelle surprise.

 

[FrankPintor]

Alberto Fernandez actually had some specific criticisms of the judgement, they're actually laid out here: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politic...no-explicaron-absolutamente-nada-nid22122022/ and as far as I can see they haven't been refuted. If they're valid criticisms, this is just another case of bought-and-paid-for justice.

 

[sts7049]

one of his biggest points is that it would be impossible to comply with. i don't really see how that should be relevant, perhaps they shouldn't have drafted a budget knowing this decision was still pending?

 

[Stantucker]

I've read a number of places that Alberto knew from the beginning that this was never going to cut constitutional mustard, but he did it anyway because of pressure from the Ks; they wanted the Province to have those funds And yes, he should have been been budgeting for that.

one of his biggest points is that it would be impossible to comply with. i don't really see how that should be relevant, perhaps they shouldn't have drafted a budget knowing this decision was still pending?

 

[antipodean]

If it was anyone else…. Golpista! Dictadura! Anti-democrática!

 

[nikad]

One word: Sedition

 

[elhombresinnombre]

And another thing: the Supreme Court decision wouldn't have blindsided anybody. It's not as if Alberto woke up to the news and stuttered "Well, bugger me sideways with a red hot poker - I never expected that." Governments have civil servants and advisors who would have been researching all the possibilities and wargaming all the possible outcomes and what happened Wednesday would have been just one of the possible outcomes they had anticipated and the response would have already been planned - whether to try and bury it in the long grass or use it as a distraction - whatever. I think the outcome is very constitutionally important and there is no way that the consequences for Argentina have been overlooked until now.

Compare and contrast with what happened in the UK on Thursday. The Scottish Parliament passed with a strong majority an important piece of legislation which it was within their gift to put into law but within minutes a law officer from the Westminster government announced that although the Scots had a right to do this, it interfered with UK law and that Westminster would block the new law from ever receiving the King's assent by using an archaic procedure. Now that is a similar constitutional crisis in the making for the UK but you can be quite sure that at every stage, advisors would have been testing all the possibilities and ministers on both sides would have had all the facts at their fingertips. Just as I'm sure has been the case here in Argentina

 

[FrankPintor]

one of his biggest points is that it would be impossible to comply with. i don't really see how that should be relevant, perhaps they shouldn't have drafted a budget knowing this decision was still pending?

His first point was that this isn't an area where the Supreme Court can interfere with the executive, and also, the law in question hasn't been declared null, nor had its constitutionality questioned. Then he's asking where the figure of 2.95% comes from, apparently it wasn't backed by any explanation or calculation. Also, he's questioning the reasoning of the court, which made the implausible claim that by transferring more money to CABA, the provinces won't be affected. If true, they indicate very sloppy reasoning by the court.

And finally, though it's not a judicial point, that CABA doesn't need more money. Though since Larreta lost his tow-truck mafia scam he must be out of pocket and needing "guita" to pay for his lifestyle and upcoming elections.

 

[dsp27]

His first point was that this isn't an area where the Supreme Court can interfere with the executive, and also, the law in question hasn't been declared null, nor had its constitutionality questioned. Then he's asking where the figure of 2.95% comes from, apparently it wasn't backed by any explanation or calculation. Also, he's questioning the reasoning of the court, which made the implausible claim that by transferring more money to CABA, the provinces won't be affected. If true, they indicate very sloppy reasoning by the court.

And finally, though it's not a judicial point, that CABA doesn't need more money. Though since Larreta lost his tow-truck mafia scam he must be out of pocket and needing "guita" to pay for his lifestyle and upcoming elections.

I think people are missing the point. Whether the decision was right or wrong, with or without merit it's the FINAL decision of the judiciary branch. You comply and if the people are really against the court they will vote in the "right" people to make changes. That's how democracy and division of branches of government work.