What Bajo brought up and Bradly seconded is actually a valid concern and shouldn't be laughed off so quickly. Macri needs to be watched, and what he is working to do with the supreme court is indeed a bit out of the ordinary at the least, considering it hasn't been done in over one hundred years, as I understand things. What we're talking about is not dictatorship - yet - but rather falling back on legal precedent from a long time ago. The funny thing about this is that there is no one who can rule this unconstitutional, really, considering that the court was left so depleted.
One of the guys who resigned (and I can't remember his name, and my internet is working so slowly I can't even get Google to come up right now because I'm downloading some databases) was what - 97 years old? And why didn't he resign when Cristina was in office? Because he didn't want her to get to assign yet another justice to the bench. He extended his life on the bench just for that purpose, at an age that is pretty incredible.
I don't think he knew was going to be the next president when he committed to staying on as long as he could. To me, that's a vote that Macri is better than Cristina and more deserving, in his view, of being able to make the appointment. I know, not legal but certainly the opinion of a long-term legal scholar who is unable to rule on the constitutionality of the move.
Macri has a very tough decision to make. He has to make a lot of changes to overcome the last 8-12 years of mismanagement and twisting of the democratic process that Cristina had a direct hand in. He's already making headway on important things like unraveling the cepo mess and trying to find a way out that doesn't hurt as much as would have to happen anyway. And yeah, he could have sat back like a poor little lost dog and attempt to deal with the futures mess that Cristina, via Vanoli, left him. Who cares about more inflation, right? As Bradly mentioned, if true, most of the currency payout required is in epsos, so why not just print some more money to cover it and make things worse?
From what I understand, Macri's appointments are not some kind of magic bullet decree that will then be ignored. After all, he doesn't have a majority in congress to battle with - yet. The procedure for this emergency decree still has to be approved by the congress, who has until the end of the coming session up to September if I remember correctly, to reject Macri's emergency appointments.
So here's Macri, trying to get people back on the court so that they can make rulings where needed when he's doing things to help unravel this ungodly mess. Anything he enacts will depend on him being able to make a consensus in congress so that his selections will be upheld. If not, he stands to lose his court appointments and possibly anything he's done if new judges rule things unconstitutional.
Now, how would Cristina have handled this? Do you all really think she'd worry about whether there were enough members on the bench? Or if she did, would she worry about having her nominations rejected and someone tougher put on the bench that would hold her to the actual law? Hell no is the ultimate answer.
To me, what Macri is doing could be seen as quintessentially democratic, and whether or not it's legal remains to be seen. It sure as hell isn't dictatorial - yet.
Seems to me that what some people want - no, demand - from their elected officials is complete honesty and 100% abide by the rules. Not relativism. I like that, but it's unrealistic in certain situations. It is a flaw of government. We are looking at someone who is purportedly trying to fix democratic institutions and is already so much more open than Cristina's government was that it's quite bright.
The idea that the law is inflexible and black and white is quite Ingenuous at best. Particularly when the previous executive, who had too much power, screwed things up so royally. I don't see Macri going over any deep end yet, but it does bear watching, as we all knew it would. As it is,legislators are born relativists - they have to be to be able to compromise whatever beliefs they may have, in the best of circumstances, to make a deal in normal situations. One can't have things both ways - welcome to government. If every legislator was ram-rod straight and never compromised to get things done, nothing would ever get done and I would be happy and not worried about governments.
But living in the real world, I have to look at who is doing the least damage, and hope that there is someone who as they are working their compromises, are trying to push things back on the right track and not doing it for their own nefarious end. I don't see that Macri is heading down an incorrect path yet.
I expect Bajo to take anything Macri does and call it dictatorship or corrupt, or what-have-you, while everything that Cristina shat or pissed out smelled like roses and honey.. I don't recall ever seeing any real criticism of her from Bajo whatsoever.
I'm a little surprised Bradley is so quick to accuse, rather than simply opine that Macri bears watching. I don't know how he feels on this topic of the judges, as I haven't seen a comment from him yet, but he was real quick in another thread that he started to jump on Macri trying to iron out a deal with the banks and others who made obviously troubling purchases on the dollars future market, immediately questioning every statement Macri's made because of that and making it look like Macri is trying to force these guys into something against their will, instead of Macri actually working with them openly - completely the opposite of how Cristina would have handled this. I almost felt that Bradly would have been pleased to see more inflation and more problems down the line than see Macri come to as close to an equitable solution for all concerned - including the Argentine people who are not game pieces in some chess game, but real people who are already in quite a bit of pain from the state of things as they are.
I knew Macri would have to get a little edgy to do this - go look it up, I've commented about it even before Macri was elected. Pretty much everyone else did too. What he's done so far isn't surprising and is not off from what most of us figured he'd have to do to set things straighter, so far. but he can't twist things too much or he's no better than Cristina. That I agree with whole-heartedly. Where that line is, I don't know yet, but I'm not rigid,, that's for sure.
One of the guys who resigned (and I can't remember his name, and my internet is working so slowly I can't even get Google to come up right now because I'm downloading some databases) was what - 97 years old? And why didn't he resign when Cristina was in office? Because he didn't want her to get to assign yet another justice to the bench. He extended his life on the bench just for that purpose, at an age that is pretty incredible.
I don't think he knew was going to be the next president when he committed to staying on as long as he could. To me, that's a vote that Macri is better than Cristina and more deserving, in his view, of being able to make the appointment. I know, not legal but certainly the opinion of a long-term legal scholar who is unable to rule on the constitutionality of the move.
Macri has a very tough decision to make. He has to make a lot of changes to overcome the last 8-12 years of mismanagement and twisting of the democratic process that Cristina had a direct hand in. He's already making headway on important things like unraveling the cepo mess and trying to find a way out that doesn't hurt as much as would have to happen anyway. And yeah, he could have sat back like a poor little lost dog and attempt to deal with the futures mess that Cristina, via Vanoli, left him. Who cares about more inflation, right? As Bradly mentioned, if true, most of the currency payout required is in epsos, so why not just print some more money to cover it and make things worse?
From what I understand, Macri's appointments are not some kind of magic bullet decree that will then be ignored. After all, he doesn't have a majority in congress to battle with - yet. The procedure for this emergency decree still has to be approved by the congress, who has until the end of the coming session up to September if I remember correctly, to reject Macri's emergency appointments.
So here's Macri, trying to get people back on the court so that they can make rulings where needed when he's doing things to help unravel this ungodly mess. Anything he enacts will depend on him being able to make a consensus in congress so that his selections will be upheld. If not, he stands to lose his court appointments and possibly anything he's done if new judges rule things unconstitutional.
Now, how would Cristina have handled this? Do you all really think she'd worry about whether there were enough members on the bench? Or if she did, would she worry about having her nominations rejected and someone tougher put on the bench that would hold her to the actual law? Hell no is the ultimate answer.
To me, what Macri is doing could be seen as quintessentially democratic, and whether or not it's legal remains to be seen. It sure as hell isn't dictatorial - yet.
Seems to me that what some people want - no, demand - from their elected officials is complete honesty and 100% abide by the rules. Not relativism. I like that, but it's unrealistic in certain situations. It is a flaw of government. We are looking at someone who is purportedly trying to fix democratic institutions and is already so much more open than Cristina's government was that it's quite bright.
The idea that the law is inflexible and black and white is quite Ingenuous at best. Particularly when the previous executive, who had too much power, screwed things up so royally. I don't see Macri going over any deep end yet, but it does bear watching, as we all knew it would. As it is,legislators are born relativists - they have to be to be able to compromise whatever beliefs they may have, in the best of circumstances, to make a deal in normal situations. One can't have things both ways - welcome to government. If every legislator was ram-rod straight and never compromised to get things done, nothing would ever get done and I would be happy and not worried about governments.
But living in the real world, I have to look at who is doing the least damage, and hope that there is someone who as they are working their compromises, are trying to push things back on the right track and not doing it for their own nefarious end. I don't see that Macri is heading down an incorrect path yet.
I expect Bajo to take anything Macri does and call it dictatorship or corrupt, or what-have-you, while everything that Cristina shat or pissed out smelled like roses and honey.. I don't recall ever seeing any real criticism of her from Bajo whatsoever.
I'm a little surprised Bradley is so quick to accuse, rather than simply opine that Macri bears watching. I don't know how he feels on this topic of the judges, as I haven't seen a comment from him yet, but he was real quick in another thread that he started to jump on Macri trying to iron out a deal with the banks and others who made obviously troubling purchases on the dollars future market, immediately questioning every statement Macri's made because of that and making it look like Macri is trying to force these guys into something against their will, instead of Macri actually working with them openly - completely the opposite of how Cristina would have handled this. I almost felt that Bradly would have been pleased to see more inflation and more problems down the line than see Macri come to as close to an equitable solution for all concerned - including the Argentine people who are not game pieces in some chess game, but real people who are already in quite a bit of pain from the state of things as they are.
I knew Macri would have to get a little edgy to do this - go look it up, I've commented about it even before Macri was elected. Pretty much everyone else did too. What he's done so far isn't surprising and is not off from what most of us figured he'd have to do to set things straighter, so far. but he can't twist things too much or he's no better than Cristina. That I agree with whole-heartedly. Where that line is, I don't know yet, but I'm not rigid,, that's for sure.
