Archive for November 20th, 2014


Revolting judiciary? Predictably so

November 20, 2014

On 5th October, an entry appeared here regarding the far from good “Lustration Law”.

“Amendments will surely follow once the Constitutional Court and Venice Commission recommendations are forthcoming, hopefully transforming the “OK” into “good” legislation – but will any amendments be made in a timely way? Lustration will surely begin very shortly after the law is signed, and certainly almost immediately after a new RADA takes up its mandate.

As the first branch of power for lustration necessarily need be the judiciary, how wise is it to subject those learned (and corrupt) individuals to a law that is “OK”, will probably be amended after they have been subjected to the original text, and therefore open a can of “appeal” worms?”

Prophetic words?  So it appears.

Indeed, as foreseen, subjecting those learned (and corrupt) individuals to a law that was clearly never more than OK, and far from being good, is subject to legal challenge from th learned (and corrupt) judiciary within their own corrupted court system.  27 of 43 Supreme Court Judges have voted to send the Lustration Law to the Constitutional Court.  Those 27 voting in favour of challenging the Lustration Law (informally) headed by the Head of the Supreme Court, Judge Romaniuk – whom perhaps would struggle to justify his wealth if ever subjected to the Lustration Law, as would many of his colleagues.

Under challenge are Part 1 – Clause 6. Part 2 – Clause 2.  Part 2 – paragraph 13.  Part 3 and Article 3.  Thus whilst not striking down the entire Lustration Law, it would certainly seem to hollow it out somewhat.

That (corrupt) judiciary will use the corrupt court system to have a thoroughly discredited Constitutional Court hear an appeal from the thoroughly discredited Supreme Court to hollow out a poorly crafted Lustration Law aimed at removing many of their number from public office is a trajicomedy at best, and a case of playing with matches amongst societal powder kegs at worst.  Either way, a political disaster potentially awaits.

That this occurs is clearly no surprise to some – lest how could this have been predicted here on 5th October?  To legislate in haste and repent at leisure is bad enough – to then be forced to repeal and/or amend at the hands of the corrupted judiciary saving themselves from within their corrupted system, comes at notable political cost when society demands the cleaning of the legal system of these corrupt practitioners.

In sum, all something of a mess.

The entry of 5th October now reads rather well, considering where we now – predictably – find ourselves.

%d bloggers like this: