Friday, April 09, 2010

Constitutional Court - a laughing stock

I was completely "underwhelmed" by the superficial, undignified and perfunctionary manner in which head of the Constitutional Court, Andriy Stryzhak, delivered his recent court's rulings: video clips here and here

The man can hardly speak properly..what an ***hole...

At a press conference later, commenting on the C.C.'s 180 degree turnaround on a ruling made by the same court in 2008 on formation of parliamentiary coalitions solely on the basis of parliamentary fractions, and not on individual deputies, Strizhak said, "Well, let us say tomorrow the political situation changes - the political state of affairs - how will the C.C. act? If so, let's wait for this tomorrow - and tomorrow we will interpret [matters], possibly, entirely differently as [we did] now."

No wonder his comments provoked giggles amongst journalists present..


elmer said...

It's a laughigstock - that's for sure.

It's not a court - it's a bazaar. It's a базар or a ярмарок (a market).

18 "judges" - all appointed via political quotas.

At least it's not 45 "judges," like on the "administrative court" that was supposed to look at falsification of elections.

What an utterly sick system.

It's not a court - and there are no judges.

It's just a collection of sovok relic parasites.

Why bother even having a "court"?

Just have Banditkovych give them a rubber stamp for whatever the thugs in the Party of Regions want.

Sick, sick, sick, sick, sick - utterly sick.

It's hard to believe the damage that the sovoks did, it's hard to believe the twisted people that the sovoks created - but here is proof, yet again.

elmer said...

The Friday, April 9, 2010 Savik Shuster show had an interesting observation by Yatseniuk (yep, I did it again - it's the 3-hour marathon, complete with a screaming match between sovok brainwashed politician idiots and other politicians - there was lots of loud screaming - about history. One of them was a guy from Russia named Zatulin. Specifically, the screaming - and it was screaming - very loud screaming - was about Stepan Bandera - the sovok version, versus the factual version. There is something underlying the whole situation, and I believe that it is a reaction against sovok brainwashing propaganda, versus the sovok relics who still rely on it to control people).

Yatseniuk's contention is that the constitutional court did not rule on whether the coalition was lawful or not - they just set forth some principles.

In the absence of such a specific ruling, it is also his contention that Yanukovych had promised to disband Parliament - resulting in pre-term parliamentary elections.

President Kravchuk was also there - he is turning out to be a very insightful, thoughtful and very reasonable guy.

He did not think much of the decision.

UkrToday said...

There is no doubt about it the decision of the Court is dubious to say the least. But this transgression is minimal and pales into insignificance when compared to Yushchenko's interference in the operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court in 2007 in order to prevent the Court from correctly declaring Yushchenko's dismissal of Ukraine's previous parliament.

The Parliamentary Assembly for the Council of Europe criticised Yushchenko's actions yet remains sleeve silent when Yushchenko's transgressions caused seven months of political and civil unrest.

PACE's mistake was not insisting on a ruling by the Constitutional Court. Yushchenko had no grounds or authority to dismiss the Parliament and force fresh elections. The previous parliament was stable and constitutional.

Europe and the US have all given tactic support for the current ruling and the new government but in doing so they have undermined their own credibility when it comes to support for the principle of Constitutional Rule of Law and democratic values.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Constitutional court only briefly touch on the provisions of Article 81 which requires that Members of Parliament MUST join and remain members of the faction that appointed them. They can not sit on the cross benches and act as independents.

The ball is in Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine's Court.

It is within the authority of any faction to apply party discipline and in pursuant to Article 81 remove the mandate from those dissident members who have acted against the factions best interest.