Thailand's Constitution Court Puts Charter Changes On Hold

[h90]

interesting to see the trend of judicial activism...

http://www.tandfonli...748.2010.521253

If you change court verdicts in parliament, for brother on the run, it is no surprise that the constitution court worries if that is compatible with the constitution and democracy.

understanding the political nature of the verdicts to be addressed seems like a good place to begin the discussion. In this case, you have the courts again intervening to stop an elected government for undoing the actions of a politically motivated judicial system which has repeated undone governments and political parties.

This is not about protecting the constitution, this is a turf-battle.

overruling court decision destroys the pillars of democracy. Beside that a reconciliation bill that isn't supported by the people with who you want to conciliate is a joke.....

By the way: in many countries the constitutional court stops laws frequently....That isn't something special.

[otherstuff1957]

^ I do understand why they have taken this action. Thaksin's proxies' actions and the Yellowshirts reactions are taking us to the brink of a precipice. We could easily see April 2010 all over again, just with dead Yellowshirts instead of dead Redshirts.

Thaksin seems to be positioning his chess pieces for upcoming violence. He's moving his family members out of the line of responsibility for any police actions, he's stirring up the Redshirts so that they may take action against the Yellows on their own, I wouldn't be surprised if stocks of M79 grenades were being dug up and dusted off! The only things holding him back at the moment are the courts & the army. Unless he has more control over them than seems to be the case, these reconciliation bills are more likely to lead to a military or judicial coup than his actual return.

[OzMick]

interesting to see the trend of judicial activism...

http://www.tandfonli...748.2010.521253

If you change court verdicts in parliament, for brother on the run, it is no surprise that the constitution court worries if that is compatible with the constitution and democracy.

understanding the political nature of the verdicts to be addressed seems like a good place to begin the discussion. In this case, you have the courts again intervening to stop an elected government for undoing the actions of a politically motivated judicial system which has repeated undone governments and political parties.

This is not about protecting the constitution, this is a turf-battle.

Latest score

Courts 1 Criminals 0

[OzMick]

^ I do understand why they have taken this action. Thaksin's proxies' actions and the Yellowshirts reactions are taking us to the brink of a precipice. We could easily see April 2010 all over again, just with dead Yellowshirts instead of dead Redshirts.

Thaksin seems to be positioning his chess pieces for upcoming violence. He's moving his family members out of the line of responsibility for any police actions, he's stirring up the Redshirts so that they may take action against the Yellows on their own, I wouldn't be surprised if stocks of M79 grenades were being dug up and dusted off! The only things holding him back at the moment are the courts & the army. Unless he has more control over them than seems to be the case, these reconciliation bills are more likely to lead to a military or judicial coup than his actual return.

".... I wouldn't be surprised if stocks of M79 grenades were being dug up and dusted off!"

Interesting point.

Would the police sergeant caught transporting 63(?) grenades to the reds be cleared under this "reconciliation" proposal? What crimes/convictions can't be claimed as legitimate political statements?

There's an obviously claimable list from terrorism/murder down to public defecation and jaywalking as long as you are wearing a red shirt.

Couldn't property crimes like burglary and bank robbery be claimed as raising money for the cause?

Sex criminals will have to be a bit more creative, but I'm sure they'll think of something.

[gand]

Would PTP be for the reconciliation bill if they were innocent and the yellow shirts were the only guilty party in this?

[Skywalker69]

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said whether or not the deliberation of reconciliation bills can proceed soon is not a problem and the party will assign MPs to create better understanding on the bills to the public, as the drafted bills have nothing to do with returning Bt46 billion in seized assets to ousted ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra as worried. (MCOT online news)

A bit of obfuscation from our spokesman. Personally I doubt that a possible return of money to k. Thaksin is any issue here. The issue is amnesty for all people who's name is k. Thaksin

......and Jatuporn, and Arisman and ..................

[bigbamboo]

The so called 'reconciliation bill', or more accurately 'bills' as there seem to be so many even the PM herself hasn't got time to read them, is surely the biggest misnomer you can imagine. The whole process is doing anything but reconcile the people but rather set them on a path to civil strife.

Come on Mr T, play the white man and let Thailand get back on it's feet and the Thai people get on with their lives. We will all be eternally grateful.

[Thaddeus]

Sex criminals will have to be a bit more creative, but I'm sure they'll think of something.

Just helping out with screwing the entire country?

[Skywalker69]

Now is the time for every Thai and others that don´t wont him back, to start sending emails to UAE asking why they haven´t sent Thaksin out. He was allowed to stay in Dubai as long as he did not meddling in politics.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Skywalker69

[tlansford]

interesting to see the trend of judicial activism...

http://www.tandfonli...748.2010.521253

If you change court verdicts in parliament, for brother on the run, it is no surprise that the constitution court worries if that is compatible with the constitution and democracy.

understanding the political nature of the verdicts to be addressed seems like a good place to begin the discussion. In this case, you have the courts again intervening to stop an elected government for undoing the actions of a politically motivated judicial system which has repeated undone governments and political parties.

This is not about protecting the constitution, this is a turf-battle.

overruling court decision destroys the pillars of democracy. Beside that a reconciliation bill that isn't supported by the people with who you want to conciliate is a joke.....

By the way: in many countries the constitutional court stops laws frequently....That isn't something special.

The article makes the point that judicial activism is well-researched in western countries, but much less so in Asia and in this case, Thailand.

Yes, there is judicial activism. But WRT democracy, is the judicial activism in Thailand supporting democracy or not? I know that you and I don't agree on politics, but I think it is still a good question to ask in a serious manner for the Thai people. In any case, with the current structure of government and courts, there is little chance, IMO, that Thailand will see less judicial activism and it seems to me that it will continue and most likely continue to increase.

Now back to your point, when the supreme court makes a ruling in the US which makes a law unconstitutional, then the law makers have every right to make a new law - happens all the time. At the moment, one of the big issues in the USA, given to Americans by an activist bench, is the issue of unlimited money in political campaigns which essentially allows Billionaires to buy candidates for President (on down). The American law makers are trying to find a way to regain control over campaign finance due to this... Hence, you have a situation where court rulings are not enhancing democracy in the US.

For me it is not a question of right or wrong for the court decisions in Thailand, it is a question for the Thai people and their law makers how they react to those decisions. But passing laws in reaction to court decisions is in no way anti-democratic, rather it is the normal process in a democracy.

[tlansford]

interesting to see the trend of judicial activism...

http://www.tandfonli...748.2010.521253

Interesting to see a criminal cabal administering a nation and some people's opposition to courts providing a check on their actions.

read the article.

The courts are not a check on anything, the courts are an active player, and a politicized active player.

Blah blah blah.

You agree with what Thaksin and his band are trying to do?

Sent from my dog.

I personally don't have a say in the situation but I do have an opinion. As a westerner, it is natural for me to want to see a thorough investigation and then take the necessary cases to court. That includes all sides, government, MiB, PAD, etc.

On the other hand, there is the question about what is best for Thailand to do. In that case, I do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand. I do understand from Thai history, that Thailand has often chosen to forgive and forget rather than to investigate and prosecute. So it doesn't surprise me that amnesty is being proposed in this case - even if you take Thaksin out of the equation.

blah blah blah back to you.

[tlansford]

interesting to see the trend of judicial activism...

http://www.tandfonli...748.2010.521253

Interesting to see a criminal cabal administering a nation and some people's opposition to courts providing a check on their actions.

read the article.

The courts are not a check on anything, the courts are an active player, and a politicized active player.

Seems that Isaan Fever's still got a grip on you. It will pass one day and the scales will fall from your eyes.

not that anything in your post is relevant to this thread or my post.

[OzMick]

I personally don't have a say in the situation but I do have an opinion. As a westerner, it is natural for me to want to see a thorough investigation and then take the necessary cases to court. That includes all sides, government, MiB, PAD, etc.

On the other hand, there is the question about what is best for Thailand to do. In that case, I do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand. I do understand from Thai history, that Thailand has often chosen to forgive and forget rather than to investigate and prosecute. So it doesn't surprise me that amnesty is being proposed in this case - even if you take Thaksin out of the equation.

blah blah blah back to you.

Last week there was hardly a political breeze in Thailand, even with the red shirts holding their commemoration. An amnesty bill is announced and suddenly we have police and military reportedly mobilising, PAD blocking parliament, Thaksin urging the reds to fight, and talk of civil war.

From the safety of the US, you claim that you "do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand."

Not many of us here suffer from that lack of clarity of thought. We can see exactly who the bill will benefit, we see the conflicts of interest involved, and if this proceeds where it might lead.

You avow anti-violence, but can't seem to say that a law that could cause massive levels of violence should be stayed at least.

[tlansford]

I personally don't have a say in the situation but I do have an opinion. As a westerner, it is natural for me to want to see a thorough investigation and then take the necessary cases to court. That includes all sides, government, MiB, PAD, etc.

On the other hand, there is the question about what is best for Thailand to do. In that case, I do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand. I do understand from Thai history, that Thailand has often chosen to forgive and forget rather than to investigate and prosecute. So it doesn't surprise me that amnesty is being proposed in this case - even if you take Thaksin out of the equation.

blah blah blah back to you.

Last week there was hardly a political breeze in Thailand, even with the red shirts holding their commemoration. An amnesty bill is announced and suddenly we have police and military reportedly mobilising, PAD blocking parliament, Thaksin urging the reds to fight, and talk of civil war.

From the safety of the US, you claim that you "do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand."

Not many of us here suffer from that lack of clarity of thought. We can see exactly who the bill will benefit, we see the conflicts of interest involved, and if this proceeds where it might lead.

You avow anti-violence, but can't seem to say that a law that could cause massive levels of violence should be stayed at least.

ozmick, really, quit trying to guess where I am, you're never right anyhow.

Second, please try reading my posts. Sorry, I mean understanding - as in comprehension - the amnesty bill is not my first choice at all - I stated that already. That said, it is not the amnesty bill which is mobilizing people.

[Crushdepth]

If you change court verdicts in parliament, for brother on the run, it is no surprise that the constitution court worries if that is compatible with the constitution and democracy.

understanding the political nature of the verdicts to be addressed seems like a good place to begin the discussion. In this case, you have the courts again intervening to stop an elected government for undoing the actions of a politically motivated judicial system which has repeated undone governments and political parties.

This is not about protecting the constitution, this is a turf-battle.

overruling court decision destroys the pillars of democracy. Beside that a reconciliation bill that isn't supported by the people with who you want to conciliate is a joke.....

By the way: in many countries the constitutional court stops laws frequently....That isn't something special.

The article makes the point that judicial activism is well-researched in western countries, but much less so in Asia and in this case, Thailand.

Yes, there is judicial activism. But WRT democracy, is the judicial activism in Thailand supporting democracy or not? I know that you and I don't agree on politics, but I think it is still a good question to ask in a serious manner for the Thai people. In any case, with the current structure of government and courts, there is little chance, IMO, that Thailand will see less judicial activism and it seems to me that it will continue and most likely continue to increase.

Now back to your point, when the supreme court makes a ruling in the US which makes a law unconstitutional, then the law makers have every right to make a new law - happens all the time. At the moment, one of the big issues in the USA, given to Americans by an activist bench, is the issue of unlimited money in political campaigns which essentially allows Billionaires to buy candidates for President (on down). The American law makers are trying to find a way to regain control over campaign finance due to this... Hence, you have a situation where court rulings are not enhancing democracy in the US.

For me it is not a question of right or wrong for the court decisions in Thailand, it is a question for the Thai people and their law makers how they react to those decisions. But passing laws in reaction to court decisions is in no way anti-democratic, rather it is the normal process in a democracy.

It is not normal for Parliament to overturn court decisions for the benefit of an *individual*, particularly a criminal. That is an abuse of power, plain and simple.

[rixalex]

ozmick, really, quit trying to guess where I am, you're never right anyhow.

If someone is accusing you of being some place you aren't, why be coy, why not just state where you are? Of course nobody is obligated to give this information, but it's hardly invading anyone's privacy to do so. Just can't see why you wouldn't be upfront.

[OzMick]

I personally don't have a say in the situation but I do have an opinion. As a westerner, it is natural for me to want to see a thorough investigation and then take the necessary cases to court. That includes all sides, government, MiB, PAD, etc.

On the other hand, there is the question about what is best for Thailand to do. In that case, I do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand. I do understand from Thai history, that Thailand has often chosen to forgive and forget rather than to investigate and prosecute. So it doesn't surprise me that amnesty is being proposed in this case - even if you take Thaksin out of the equation.

blah blah blah back to you.

Last week there was hardly a political breeze in Thailand, even with the red shirts holding their commemoration. An amnesty bill is announced and suddenly we have police and military reportedly mobilising, PAD blocking parliament, Thaksin urging the reds to fight, and talk of civil war.

From the safety of the US, you claim that you "do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand."

Not many of us here suffer from that lack of clarity of thought. We can see exactly who the bill will benefit, we see the conflicts of interest involved, and if this proceeds where it might lead.

You avow anti-violence, but can't seem to say that a law that could cause massive levels of violence should be stayed at least.

ozmick, really, quit trying to guess where I am, you're never right anyhow.

Second, please try reading my posts. Sorry, I mean understanding - as in comprehension - the amnesty bill is not my first choice at all - I stated that already. That said, it is not the amnesty bill which is mobilizing people.

If it not the amnesty bill that is mobilising people, what is? What else has changed in the last week or so?

[thaicbr]

I personally don't have a say in the situation but I do have an opinion. As a westerner, it is natural for me to want to see a thorough investigation and then take the necessary cases to court. That includes all sides, government, MiB, PAD, etc.

On the other hand, there is the question about what is best for Thailand to do. In that case, I do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand. I do understand from Thai history, that Thailand has often chosen to forgive and forget rather than to investigate and prosecute. So it doesn't surprise me that amnesty is being proposed in this case - even if you take Thaksin out of the equation.

blah blah blah back to you.

Last week there was hardly a political breeze in Thailand, even with the red shirts holding their commemoration. An amnesty bill is announced and suddenly we have police and military reportedly mobilising, PAD blocking parliament, Thaksin urging the reds to fight, and talk of civil war.

From the safety of the US, you claim that you "do not know if amnesty or investigation is the right choice for Thailand."

Not many of us here suffer from that lack of clarity of thought. We can see exactly who the bill will benefit, we see the conflicts of interest involved, and if this proceeds where it might lead.

You avow anti-violence, but can't seem to say that a law that could cause massive levels of violence should be stayed at least.

ozmick, really, quit trying to guess where I am, you're never right anyhow.

Second, please try reading my posts. Sorry, I mean understanding - as in comprehension - the amnesty bill is not my first choice at all - I stated that already. That said, it is not the amnesty bill which is mobilizing people.

If it not the amnesty bill that is mobilising people, what is? What else has changed in the last week or so?

I know. I know this one.

Jaturporn has just changed his underpants. That's the smell that's going around

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[OzMick]

If it not the amnesty bill that is mobilising people, what is? What else has changed in the last week or so?

I know. I know this one.

Jaturporn has just changed his underpants. That's the smell that's going around

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

So that's what Yingluk meant when she said "make a better atmosphere"................

Sent via my Dick Tracy 2-way Wrist Radio

[tlansford]

ozmick, really, quit trying to guess where I am, you're never right anyhow.

If someone is accusing you of being some place you aren't, why be coy, why not just state where you are? Of course nobody is obligated to give this information, but it's hardly invading anyone's privacy to do so. Just can't see why you wouldn't be upfront.

It doesn't matter and it is not relevant to the discussion.

[tlansford]

-- deleted for quote limits --

understanding the political nature of the verdicts to be addressed seems like a good place to begin the discussion. In this case, you have the courts again intervening to stop an elected government for undoing the actions of a politically motivated judicial system which has repeated undone governments and political parties.

This is not about protecting the constitution, this is a turf-battle.

overruling court decision destroys the pillars of democracy. Beside that a reconciliation bill that isn't supported by the people with who you want to conciliate is a joke.....

By the way: in many countries the constitutional court stops laws frequently....That isn't something special.

The article makes the point that judicial activism is well-researched in western countries, but much less so in Asia and in this case, Thailand.

Yes, there is judicial activism. But WRT democracy, is the judicial activism in Thailand supporting democracy or not? I know that you and I don't agree on politics, but I think it is still a good question to ask in a serious manner for the Thai people. In any case, with the current structure of government and courts, there is little chance, IMO, that Thailand will see less judicial activism and it seems to me that it will continue and most likely continue to increase.

Now back to your point, when the supreme court makes a ruling in the US which makes a law unconstitutional, then the law makers have every right to make a new law - happens all the time. At the moment, one of the big issues in the USA, given to Americans by an activist bench, is the issue of unlimited money in political campaigns which essentially allows Billionaires to buy candidates for President (on down). The American law makers are trying to find a way to regain control over campaign finance due to this... Hence, you have a situation where court rulings are not enhancing democracy in the US.

For me it is not a question of right or wrong for the court decisions in Thailand, it is a question for the Thai people and their law makers how they react to those decisions. But passing laws in reaction to court decisions is in no way anti-democratic, rather it is the normal process in a democracy.

It is not normal for Parliament to overturn court decisions for the benefit of an *individual*, particularly a criminal. That is an abuse of power, plain and simple.

The amnesty bill does not benefit just one *individual* but the *individual* hated by some factions of Thai politics could benefit.

Remember when the rhetoric from the opposition was that a reconciliation bill could not be for the benefit of just one person?

Now that a reconciliation bill would be for the benefit of many individuals from all sides of the conflict, it has become clear that the opposition just meant that the reconciliation bill must *exclude* one particular *individual*.

I don't care what happens to Thaksin, but I do care about what happens to Thailand. The Thais need to figure this one out, and they are in the middle of doing that right now.

Let's see what they come up with. (*they* being all sides involved, not just the PTP)

As for your statement, it is not normal for a court to overthrow a government or depose a prime minister, either. ... just for the record.

[Thaddeus]

The amnesty bill does not benefit just one *individual* but the *individual* hated by some factions of Thai politics could benefit.

Remember when the rhetoric from the opposition was that a reconciliation bill could not be for the benefit of just one person?

Now that a reconciliation bill would be for the benefit of many individuals from all sides of the conflict, it has become clear that the opposition just meant that the reconciliation bill must *exclude* one particular *individual*.

I don't care what happens to Thaksin, but I do care about what happens to Thailand. The Thais need to figure this one out, and they are in the middle of doing that right now.

Let's see what they come up with. (*they* being all sides involved, not just the PTP)

As for your statement, it is not normal for a court to overthrow a government or depose a prime minister, either. ... just for the record.

Oh c'mon, I don't believe that you are that dumb, no one could be.

It's sugar coated.

Look how magnanimous we are, we are prepared to forgive the sins of the dems (which is open to question) after all, it's small price to pay (certainly less than 46 Billion Baht) so that our lord and master can also be washed up with the tide of forgiveness.

Amen.

[volk666]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

[tlansford]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

[gand]

The only reconciliation should be to put any and all criminals on trial, including additional charges against TS, terrorism & treason to name just two.

[nurofiend]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

hey, didn't you know that the judicary is only corrupt when it helps thaksin?!

at least that's what i get from reading on here.

[rubl]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

There's only one charge for which k. Thaksin is convicted. Lots of charges cannot progress without the accused being present to hear the charges.

The one charge for which there was a conviction gives ample reason to believe that if k. Thaksin had still been in office the charge would have been dropped or even not be submitted. Now that's political for sure

Edited June 3, 2012 by rubl

[rixalex]

ozmick, really, quit trying to guess where I am, you're never right anyhow.

If someone is accusing you of being some place you aren't, why be coy, why not just state where you are? Of course nobody is obligated to give this information, but it's hardly invading anyone's privacy to do so. Just can't see why you wouldn't be upfront.

It doesn't matter and it is not relevant to the discussion.

OK well, i think it is relevant to how each of our viewpoints are formed, but germane to the thread, no. Still can't fathom why people get so protective about such information though.

As Ali G would say, i'm on the west-side of Bangkok... not that anyone was asking..... sniff sniff.

[Thaddeus]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

And your opinion of the other cases still pending is?

[h90]

Thaksin was tried and convicted for offenses committed long before the coup and so his case is fundamentally different from that of reds and yellows who are offered amnesty for whatever they did in post coup political struggle.

He was tried and convicted for one offense.

The charge of abuse of power and the trial against Thaksin both stem from the post-coup regime. The event for which he was convicted was, indeed, necessarily prior to that.

The most cursory survey of the actual charges and the resulting conviction give ample reason to believe that it was a political conviction rather than a serious infraction of "abuse of power" ... at least in this particular case.

And all the other cases at court? When Thaksin got convicted Samak was in power (if I recall right).