PPT is pleased that the Bangkok Post has reported on the Nitirat group’s call for the Constitutional Court to be dissolved.
In addition of our several posts that have shown the court to be politicized and corrupt, PPT agrees that the court is guilty “of abusing its authority and intervening in the work of the legislative branch by issuing a ruling last week on the government’s bid to amend the constitution.”
We have argued that the court has failed to follow its own rules and procedures and has failed to understand the constitution it is meant to interpret and protect. It is a sham and a joke.
The Nitirat Group of lecturers “called for a new panel of judges to be formed to replace the Constitution Court.” One of them stated that the “court’s ruling was tantamount to staging a ‘coup’.” Of course, they are right for the court has “interfered with parliament’s power to amend the constitution and undermined democracy as the parliament is elected by the people…”.
However, their suggestion that a new panel of judges be “appointed by the HM the King in accordance with the recommendation of the parliament president” only makes sense if the king is under the constitution.
At present, the king has too much power to intervene.
[...] reports note that the judges in Thailand’s politicized Constitutional Court were unanimous in ruling that the law was constitutional. Apparently, the [...]
[...] reports note that the judges in Thailand’s politicized Constitutional Court were unanimous in ruling that the law was constitutional. Apparently, the [...]
[...] Update: A reader points out that our interpretation of the Constitutional Court and the referendum is contradicted by this story. We are not convinced that this is so. In the first place, we said “royalist lackey judges at the Constitutional Court sided with the other royalists and agreed that a referendum was necessary.” That is the “advice” in the story. Second, we think it important to also read earlier posts here and here. [...]
[...] Update: A reader points out that our interpretation of the Constitutional Court and the referendum is contradicted by this story. We are not convinced that this is so. In the first place, we said “royalist lackey judges at the Constitutional Court sided with the other royalists and agreed that a referendum was necessary.” That is the “advice” in the story. Second, we think it important to also read earlier posts here and here. [...]