Pheu Thai Party's Statement In Defiance Of High Court

[dru2]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

Wow philw where have you been? The PTP stacked everything in their favor including the House speaker. The Democrats WERE trying to debate the bill but the PTP wouldn't have any of that. They just rammed it through and the House speaker just shrugged off protests by the Democrats which led to the behavior in Parliament.

Have you got any proof of the above, or you have just assumed it all because it suits your point of view?

I take it you don't read the papers or follow the news in either Thai or English?

ThaiOats has it right and Smutcakes knows nothing.

[animatic]

Next on the PTP agenda after ramming the 'reconcilliation bill' through, court reform.

After calling this "reconcilliation bill", how would the name the bill that disbands the constitution court?

Conciliation prize?

.

.

.

.

nah

.

.

.

Boobie Prize

for sure.

[animatic]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

Wow philw where have you been? The PTP stacked everything in their favor including the House speaker. The Democrats WERE trying to debate the bill but the PTP wouldn't have any of that. They just rammed it through and the House speaker just shrugged off protests by the Democrats which led to the behavior in Parliament.

With Thaksin and PTP at the helm it's politics that champions business ethics such that their aim is to monopolize everything. Buy all the politicians, buy all the officials, buy all the votes, and they can control everything or so they thought. Luckily, some people have moral ethics and loyal enough not to be easily bought. The PTP coalition is a gathering of many parties (which were more than likely bought) while the Democrats are the true grassroots Democratic party that slowly try to earn their reputation and members.

No.

the period that period started August 3, 2001 Thaksin acquitted

http://www.nationmul...cs_30043476.php

The knife-edge vote in his favour is 8-7....

...National Counter Corruption Commission ruled by eight to one

that Thaksin had dishonest intentions when he did not declare part of his assets

after leaving the post of deputy prime minister during the Chavalit Yongchaiyudh government in 1997...

It has been a push pull fight for control of the judiciary since then.

Edited June 5, 2012 by animatic

[Sunderland]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

Good point at the end there. One wonders if PT and their associates are actually trying to create a situation where civil war must take place. Perhaps the police fancy their chances against the army. Perhaps Hun Sen is going to help them.

I think the days of PT are numbered one way or the other. If only they had concentrated on solving the flooding and economic problems. Oh well ...

[Sunderland]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

Wow philw where have you been? The PTP stacked everything in their favor including the House speaker. The Democrats WERE trying to debate the bill but the PTP wouldn't have any of that. They just rammed it through and the House speaker just shrugged off protests by the Democrats which led to the behavior in Parliament.

Have you got any proof of the above, or you have just assumed it all because it suits your point of view?

I watched it on TV, and yes there was clear evidence of both earlier readings being rammed through Parliament. Hardly what could have been called 'fair' debate.

[ThaiOats]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

Wow philw where have you been? The PTP stacked everything in their favor including the House speaker. The Democrats WERE trying to debate the bill but the PTP wouldn't have any of that. They just rammed it through and the House speaker just shrugged off protests by the Democrats which led to the behavior in Parliament.

Have you got any proof of the above, or you have just assumed it all because it suits your point of view?

Same could be said about philw's opinions but I don't see you asking him the same question. There's a cause to everything, so what do you think caused the Democrats to misbehave? Did they just have a sudden impulse to throw papers where they could've done so in any other Parliamentary sessions or did something really urgent have had to happen.

[waza]

The period of "Judicial Politics" started on September 19th, 2006. Much shit still to hit the fan...

Think you are dead right on that and a lot more trouble now to come.

The whole point of a Judiciary is that they should be apolitical.

In this instance they are clearly not, even by their own admission ( see the other paper's website ) and the Dems could of course have debated the proposed bills, proposed amendments, voiced objections and kept their toys in their pram.

They chose not to, because they have their own agenda which is clearly not very parliamentarian and sadly that does not extend to trying to win elections.

Now it's a collision course, again.

It will not be "interesting" to see what happens when they ban PTP, because that is surely coming.

it will be a huge mistake.

Wow philw where have you been? The PTP stacked everything in their favor including the House speaker. The Democrats WERE trying to debate the bill but the PTP wouldn't have any of that. They just rammed it through and the House speaker just shrugged off protests by the Democrats which led to the behavior in Parliament.

Have you got any proof of the above, or you have just assumed it all because it suits your point of view?

Having watched this situation unfolding from the start I would have to say that I concur completely with ThaiOats and I believe that to be the consensus on this forum. What proof do you have that this isnt the case?

Edited June 5, 2012 by waza

[maidu]

I also concur that PT party, and in particular their died in the wool speaker, is doing all they can to railroad the flawed bills (all four say the same thing) thru parliament a.s.a.p. The reason is obvious. Their puppetmaster insists he needs to get his hands on that 46 billion baht soon.

And in Thailand, no one can question the court.

The Thai court is always right. if you do not respect court verdict, or question it, you go to jail.

If that's so, and I believe it is somewhat, then PT party is blatantly countering the Thai justice system. How else can a person explain actively trying to undo many prior findings of the court? ....and seeks to hamper on-going court proceedings. It stinks of disrespect for the Thai justice system.

What we have, in Thailand, is most authoritative bodies backing the PT party - mainly because PT has the majority of power seats and also because they have a very wealthy (and determined) man commandeering them. PT backers include most of the military and police brass. The judiciary is one of the few authoritative institutions which appear to have the guts and the moral compass to stand up to PT. Not surprisingly, the PT will even stoop so low as to try and dismember parts of the judiciary, if that's what it takes to bring their hero back, and fatten his wallet by 46 billion baht.

Edited June 5, 2012 by maidu

[nurofiend]

The court is correct in using law 68.

PT should be ban for questioning the court.

the law regarding article 68 is clearly stated above, along with the procedure, and it has not been followed so is therefore not an enforceable judgement. So maybe you can tell us all why it is correct, is it because you say so?

Or is 'law' 68 something completely different and you have just posted in the wrong thread?

It is correct. Not because I say so?

It is because the court say so.

And in Thailand, no one can question the court.

The Thai court is always right.

if you do not respect court verdict, or question it, you go to jail.

and what if the constitution court has acted against the rules of the constitution?

[thaicbr]

The court is correct in using law 68.

PT should be ban for questioning the court.

the law regarding article 68 is clearly stated above, along with the procedure, and it has not been followed so is therefore not an enforceable judgement. So maybe you can tell us all why it is correct, is it because you say so?

Or is 'law' 68 something completely different and you have just posted in the wrong thread?

It is correct. Not because I say so?

It is because the court say so.

And in Thailand, no one can question the court.

The Thai court is always right.

if you do not respect court verdict, or question it, you go to jail.

and what if the constitution court has acted against the rules of the constitution?

But they haven't.....so no problem

[nurofiend]

and what if the constitution court has acted against the rules of the constitution?

But they haven't.....so no problem

is that a fact or your opinion?

[thaicbr]

and what if the constitution court has acted against the rules of the constitution?

But they haven't.....so no problem

is that a fact or your opinion?

why don't you find out the facts.. rather than just spouting the red propaganda.

As far as i'm aware there is no precedent for the scope of what's happening..therefore the constitution court are within their powers to ask for these/this bill to be postponed until further deliberation. Its postponed NOT cancelled for a number of reasons..

You SHOULD be asking 'Why are PTP SO DESPERATE for this bill to pass now"

[volk666]

The Court issuing an injunction without the case first being submitted by Attoreny-General is indeed questionable, I hope the judges have answers for that.

But that besides the point - when they issued an injunction they stated right away that they have no power to enforce it and they can't order the House to stop deliberating the bills, there's no need to mobilize the troops yet, PTP are running around fighting their own strawman.

What the judges said that if the MPs defy the injunction then the judges will take this action into consideration later, when they will decide on the merits of the submitted complaints. So PTP aren't doing themselves any favor with their defiance and only add evidence against their own cause.

But, perhaps, they are deliberately raising the temperature now so that when the bill is overruled the reds will all pumped up and ready for real action against the Court ruling.

Also the judges explained that their current concern is that the bill does not unequivocally state that the "democracy with the King as the Head of State" system will be preserved. That is surely a very important consideration deserving immediate attention. Does it warrant Court action without request from AG? I don't know, sounds important enough, but, as I said, is not the point, it's just a pretext for fanning anti-court hysteria.

Edited June 5, 2012 by volk666

[GentlemanJim]

The Court issuing an injunction without the case first being submitted by Attoreny-General is indeed questionable, I hope the judges have answers for that.

But that besides the point - when they issued an injunction they stated right away that they have no power to enforce it and they can't order the House to stop deliberating the bills, there's no need to mobilize the troops yet, PTP are running around fighting their own strawman.

What the judges said that if the MPs defy the injunction then the judges will take this action into consideration later, when they will decide on the merits of the submitted complaints. So PTP aren't doing themselves any favor with their defiance and only add evidence against their own cause.

But, perhaps, they are deliberately raising the temperature now so that when the bill is overruled the reds will all pumped up and ready for real action against the Court ruling.

Also the judges explained that their current concern is that the bill does not unequivocally state that the "democracy with the King as the Head of State" system will be preserved. That is surely a very important consideration deserving immediate attention. Does it warrant Court action without request from AG? I don't know, sounds important enough, but, as I said, is not the point, it's just a pretext for fanning anti-court hysteria.

Well you have pretty much answered the points. According to Article 68 a petition is indeed allowed to be submitted direct to the court for it's consideration and by passing the AG if it is considered that a decision must be made in a very short time frame, which issuing via the AG would not permit. The court have also said that under Article 68 it is the choice of Parliament to continue the debate or not as the decision is not legally binding.

Edited June 5, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[nurofiend]

and what if the constitution court has acted against the rules of the constitution?

But they haven't.....so no problem

is that a fact or your opinion?

why don't you find out the facts.. rather than just spouting the red propaganda.

As far as i'm aware there is no precedent for the scope of what's happening..therefore the constitution court are within their powers to ask for these/this bill to be postponed until further deliberation. Its postponed NOT cancelled for a number of reasons..

You SHOULD be asking 'Why are PTP SO DESPERATE for this bill to pass now"

oh stop with the red propaganda bull, it's just silly... where is all this red propaganda that i'm spouting?

i asked is it fact because you stated it as such.

but it's based on 'as far as your aware' rather than fact, and that's all i was asking.

[gregb]

But they haven't.....so no problem

is that a fact or your opinion?

why don't you find out the facts.. rather than just spouting the red propaganda.

As far as i'm aware there is no precedent for the scope of what's happening..therefore the constitution court are within their powers to ask for these/this bill to be postponed until further deliberation. Its postponed NOT cancelled for a number of reasons..

You SHOULD be asking 'Why are PTP SO DESPERATE for this bill to pass now"

oh stop with the red propaganda bull, it's just silly... where is all this red propaganda that i'm spouting?

i asked is it fact because you stated it as such.

but it's based on 'as far as your aware' rather than fact, and that's all i was asking.

The *FACT* is the Constitution Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the constitution, therefore, they by definition are correct. As I have stated previously, the expanded their purview in order to prevent needless bloodshed, and they should be applauded for having the courage to do this despite the obvious backlash that will come from the government.

You seem to continue to imply that you disagree with their action. This means you must prefer the alternative, which would have been fighting and death. That is what everyone means by red propaganda. Trying to frame this discussion as nothing more than a legal debate, rather than seeing it through the very real world issue that people were about to die.

The Constitution Court did what had to be done. There is precedent in many countries for this, one of which I have outlined previously. The court are the ones who decide what is legal in this case, so they can not be wrong. Their actions in this case are morally impeccable. Only red propaganda tries to paint this as anything else.

Edited June 5, 2012 by gregb

[nurofiend]

The *FACT* is the Constitution Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the constitution, therefore, they by definition are correct. As I have stated previously, the expanded their purview in order to prevent needless bloodshed, and they should be applauded for having the courage to do this despite the obvious backlash that will come from the government.

You seem to continue to imply that you disagree with their action. This means you must prefer the alternative, which would have been fighting and death. That is what everyone means by red propaganda. Trying to frame this discussion as nothing more than a legal debate, rather than seeing it through the very real world issue that people were about to die.

The Constitution Court did what had to be done. There is precedent in many countries for this, one of which I have outlined previously. The court are the ones who decide what is legal in this case, so they can not be wrong. Their actions in this case are morally impeccable. Only red propaganda tries to paint this as anything else.

You seem to continue to imply that you disagree with their action

are you tripping or what? where have i implied that? take a look at what post i first responded to... context...context....context.

This means you must prefer the alternative, which would have been fighting and death

you're saying i prefer fighting and death because i asked what happens if a constitutional court has acted against the rules of the constitution in response to someone saying you cannot question the court no matter what...

you must've been reading from a different page in an alternate reality to be able to conjure up that kinda garbage based on one question that i asked!

i feel any attempt at intellectual debate would be futile.

so you win.

[GentlemanJim]

The *FACT* is the Constitution Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the constitution, therefore, they by definition are correct. As I have stated previously, the expanded their purview in order to prevent needless bloodshed, and they should be applauded for having the courage to do this despite the obvious backlash that will come from the government.

You seem to continue to imply that you disagree with their action. This means you must prefer the alternative, which would have been fighting and death. That is what everyone means by red propaganda. Trying to frame this discussion as nothing more than a legal debate, rather than seeing it through the very real world issue that people were about to die.

The Constitution Court did what had to be done. There is precedent in many countries for this, one of which I have outlined previously. The court are the ones who decide what is legal in this case, so they can not be wrong. Their actions in this case are morally impeccable. Only red propaganda tries to paint this as anything else.

You seem to continue to imply that you disagree with their action

are you tripping or what? where have i implied that? take a look at what post i first responded to... context...context....context.

This means you must prefer the alternative, which would have been fighting and death

you're saying i prefer fighting and death because i asked what happens if a constitutional court has acted against the rules of the constitution in response to someone saying you cannot question the court no matter what...

you must've been reading from a different page in an alternate reality to be able to conjure up that kinda garbage based on one question that i asked!

i feel any attempt at intellectual debate would be futile.

so you win.

and you get away with a personal attack. Funny you sound just like Samak this morning, slagging the courts off and then saying 'they win'. How ironic.

[nurofiend]

lol personal attack, yeah right.

[Crushdepth]

and what if the constitution court has acted against the rules of the constitution?

But they haven't.....so no problem

is that a fact or your opinion?

It's a fact, according to former Speaker Meechai. You might want to have a look at the section of law he quoted. The bit about the court's decisions being final and binding on Parliament etc (this may come as some sort of surprise, but no, an elected government cannot do as it pleases).

When will you begin to let facts influence your view of the world?

[Buchholz]

The party also urged Parliament to proceed with the final passage of the bill despite the court injunction.

they've changed their mind

The House Speaker decided yesterday to withdraw voting on the constitutional-amendment bill and debate on the controversial reconciliation bills from parliamentary session agendas.

http://www.thaivisa....r/#entry5364681

Edited June 6, 2012 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

and what if the constitution court has acted against the rules of the constitution?

But they haven't.....so no problem

is that a fact or your opinion?

It's a fact, according to former Speaker Meechai. You might want to have a look at the section of law he quoted. The bit about the court's decisions being final and binding on Parliament etc (this may come as some sort of surprise, but no, an elected government cannot do as it pleases).

When will you begin to let facts influence your view of the world?

so condescending, i love it.

i'll try not to ask any questions in the future but i just truly admire all the material that some of ye posters can garner out of someone asking a one sentence question, if ye could bottle it and sell it ye'd be rich!

[kimamey]

The court is correct in using law 68.

PT should be ban for questioning the court.

the law regarding article 68 is clearly stated above, along with the procedure, and it has not been followed so is therefore not an enforceable judgement. So maybe you can tell us all why it is correct, is it because you say so?

Or is 'law' 68 something completely different and you have just posted in the wrong thread?

It is correct. Not because I say so?

It is because the court say so.

And in Thailand, no one can question the court.

The Thai court is always right.

if you do not respect court verdict, or question it, you go to jail.

I have always seen on here that you can't question the verdict of the court but that seems only to apply on this forum as far as I can see.

[OzMick]

"The cabinet yesterday earmarked 3.8 billion baht to build flood walls around six industrial estates in Ayutthaya and Pathum Thani which were badly hit in last year's flood crisis.

Construction of the walls will take about two months, he said." From weather thread.

As always, the most important things get the highest priorities. It's just a matter of who decides what is important.

[Crushdepth]

But they haven't.....so no problem

is that a fact or your opinion?

It's a fact, according to former Speaker Meechai. You might want to have a look at the section of law he quoted. The bit about the court's decisions being final and binding on Parliament etc (this may come as some sort of surprise, but no, an elected government cannot do as it pleases).

When will you begin to let facts influence your view of the world?

so condescending, i love it.

i'll try not to ask any questions in the future but i just truly admire all the material that some of ye posters can garner out of someone asking a one sentence question, if ye could bottle it and sell it ye'd be rich!

If you refrained from trying to twist every aspect of reality to fit within your totalitarian ideology, you might draw less flack. As it is, you are apparently *clueless* about government, governance and democracy. Why don't you do us all a favour and do a bit of reading before resuming your diatribe?

[animatic]

lol personal attack, yeah right.

Indeed implying some on is"tripping" means you are saying

they are on LSD or another strong hallucinogenic.

And that is clearly a flame.

[Nickymaster]

It is TS amnesty that is important, not the dead red shirts or the other dead Thais?

Thaksin Bargains With the Dead Red Shirts

http://2bangkok.com/...-to-return.html

Just shows how slow the Red Shirts are to grasp certain events. Even a presumably politically astute cartoonist. Thaksin would have never had them killed if it wasn't his intention to bargain with their corpses.

+1

Edited June 6, 2012 by Nickymaster

[nurofiend]

lol personal attack, yeah right.

Indeed implying some on is"tripping" means you are saying

they are on LSD or another strong hallucinogenic.

And that is clearly a flame.

lol.."implying someone is tripping"

it was slang

[nurofiend]

If you refrained from trying to twist every aspect of reality to fit within your totalitarian ideology, you might draw less flack. As it is, you are apparently *clueless* about government, governance and democracy. Why don't you do us all a favour and do a bit of reading before resuming your diatribe?

what an absolute pile of bs, seriously that's one of the most ridiculous posts i've ever read on here and that's saying something.

"totalitarian ideology"

what the hell are you crapping on about?

"you are apparently *clueless* about government, governance and democracy"

back up the absolute bullcrap that you spout with some evidence of this slur or else <deleted>, thanks.

of course, you have nothing to back up your pile of dung of a post.