Experts Question Court Decision Over Charter Amendment Bill

[tlansford]

- deleted -

With respect the only reason that this situation has arisen because someone has told the CC that the bills are likely to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution" Section 68 - pure supposition. The Attorney General has already ruled the bills as doing nothing of the sort, The CC will likely follow after a period of deliberation but in the process have pushed their boundaries to the limit and beyond by the mere act of bypassing the Attorney General.

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

As this situation is likely to continue on the current trajectory, it will be interesting if we compile information on the different judges involved. The president of the CC ruled on both the Thaksin land case and nullified the April 2006 election. Of the 9 members on the current CC, potentially 5 are left over from the Junta selection, and the others would have been selected by the senate (half of which in turn is selected by the judges...)

As for the democrats, I am afraid that it appears that you are right. Since the election, the only actions they have taken as the opposition party has been to stir up trouble - now in France and the US, the opposition is still motivated to participate in law-making, ie, policy, but it seems in Thailand to not be the case?

And of course, the current gyrations at the CC are not due to the UDD or the PTP, but they can still be blamed for it here ...

[volk666]

With respect the only reason that this situation has arisen because someone has told the CC that the bills are likely to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution" Section 68 - pure supposition. The Attorney General has already ruled the bills as doing nothing of the sort, The CC will likely follow after a period of deliberation but in the process have pushed their boundaries to the limit and beyond by the mere act of bypassing the Attorney General.

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

There are five or six petitions on the same issue, I understand, and Dems said they submitted theirs a month ago without any sign of progress from the AG.

"The Attorney General has already ruled.."

Sort of - several days AFTER the court decided to take the petitions on its own.

The most vocal people protesting aren't even the lawyers, and now we have petitions to impeach the judges signed by people who admit they don't understand what the problem is exactly.

[binjalin]

Will the PTP pass a law to eliminate the Constitutional court?

we can only hope

[binjalin]

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

at last someone 'get's it' - have we forgotten who won the election? no it wasn't TV 'experts' Thai's voted - who won? and still the Dems and there yellow army try to subvert this great country into a puppet state of the rich and powerful

[Rob8891]

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

at last someone 'get's it' - have we forgotten who won the election? no it wasn't TV 'experts' Thai's voted - who won? and still the Dems and there yellow army try to subvert this great country into a puppet state of the rich and powerful

Isn't the rich and powerful puppet master yanking everyone's strings from Dubai?

[Rob8891]

If I can be allowed to copy a post I made in another thread....

" PTP would be very wise if they listened to the courst and did not rush the reading..... (this is said with no irony or humour)..... they could then be seen to be exploring all avenues (however reluctantly). If they are so sure that they are correct in their interpretation of constitutional law, they can afford to wait a short while until the CC deliberates. Then they can amass their MPs and claim a TRULY democratic result"......

I will now sit back and wait to be flamed... but given the state of the Scottish summer, said flaming can only be a bonus.......

[lungmi]

- deleted -

With respect the only reason that this situation has arisen because someone has told the CC that the bills are likely to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution" Section 68 - pure supposition. The Attorney General has already ruled the bills as doing nothing of the sort, The CC will likely follow after a period of deliberation but in the process have pushed their boundaries to the limit and beyond by the mere act of bypassing the Attorney General.

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

As this situation is likely to continue on the current trajectory, it will be interesting if we compile information on the different judges involved. The president of the CC ruled on both the Thaksin land case and nullified the April 2006 election. Of the 9 members on the current CC, potentially 5 are left over from the Junta selection, and the others would have been selected by the senate (half of which in turn is selected by the judges...)

As for the democrats, I am afraid that it appears that you are right. Since the election, the only actions they have taken as the opposition party has been to stir up trouble - now in France and the US, the opposition is still motivated to participate in law-making, ie, policy, but it seems in Thailand to not be the case?

And of course, the current gyrations at the CC are not due to the UDD or the PTP, but they can still be blamed for it here ...

They did a good job, what do you complain?

Do you need Al Capone judges?. The red shirts are greedy for this.

Edited June 9, 2012 by lungmi

[MikeOboe57]

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

at last someone 'get's it' - have we forgotten who won the election? no it wasn't TV 'experts' Thai's voted - who won? and still the Dems and there yellow army try to subvert this great country into a puppet state of the rich and powerful

Even if you get 100% of the votes in an election the constitution and laws of the country still apply. But this is obviously too complicated for the simple red minds.

[rubl]

Interesting posts on what makes a law expert.

While studying Math a long, long time ago one of our professors always nagged us with "You can read, but do you understand? Can you express in your own words what this says? Can you interpret, extrapolate, apply?"

[tlansford]

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

at last someone 'get's it' - have we forgotten who won the election? no it wasn't TV 'experts' Thai's voted - who won? and still the Dems and there yellow army try to subvert this great country into a puppet state of the rich and powerful

Even if you get 100% of the votes in an election the constitution and laws of the country still apply. But this is obviously too complicated for the simple red minds.

Bingo, for example to decide if a law is unconstitutional, it should first exist.

Which is the point of the article.

[GentlemanJim]

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

at last someone 'get's it' - have we forgotten who won the election? no it wasn't TV 'experts' Thai's voted - who won? and still the Dems and there yellow army try to subvert this great country into a puppet state of the rich and powerful

Even if you get 100% of the votes in an election the constitution and laws of the country still apply. But this is obviously too complicated for the simple red minds.

Bingo, for example to decide if a law is unconstitutional, it should first exist.

Which is the point of the article.

Sorry but that is completely flawed. You can tell when it is on a piece of paper before it is made law if it is unconstitutional. All the CC have done is said, take time out whilst we scrutinize what you are doing before you pass it in to law. Once passed in law, how long would it take to retract? In the meantime, the fugitive would be back and everyone of those on terrorism charges would be off scott free, and of course would not be able to be tried again for their crimes even if the law were subsequently revoked.

[tlansford]

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

at last someone 'get's it' - have we forgotten who won the election? no it wasn't TV 'experts' Thai's voted - who won? and still the Dems and there yellow army try to subvert this great country into a puppet state of the rich and powerful

Even if you get 100% of the votes in an election the constitution and laws of the country still apply. But this is obviously too complicated for the simple red minds.

Bingo, for example to decide if a law is unconstitutional, it should first exist.

Which is the point of the article.

Sorry but that is completely flawed. You can tell when it is on a piece of paper before it is made law if it is unconstitutional. All the CC have done is said, take time out whilst we scrutinize what you are doing before you pass it in to law. Once passed in law, how long would it take to retract? In the meantime, the fugitive would be back and everyone of those on terrorism charges would be off scott free, and of course would not be able to be tried again for their crimes even if the law were subsequently revoked.

I am wondering which country is your home country...

Where I come from and where I have lived, a law must first exist before it can be challenged in court.

If you think that is completely flawed, then I respectfully suggest that you take it up with the rest of the world.

Cheers

[GentlemanJim]

Even if you get 100% of the votes in an election the constitution and laws of the country still apply. But this is obviously too complicated for the simple red minds.

Bingo, for example to decide if a law is unconstitutional, it should first exist.

Which is the point of the article.

Sorry but that is completely flawed. You can tell when it is on a piece of paper before it is made law if it is unconstitutional. All the CC have done is said, take time out whilst we scrutinize what you are doing before you pass it in to law. Once passed in law, how long would it take to retract? In the meantime, the fugitive would be back and everyone of those on terrorism charges would be off scott free, and of course would not be able to be tried again for their crimes even if the law were subsequently revoked.

I am wondering which country is your home country...

Where I come from and where I have lived, a law must first exist before it can be challenged in court.

If you think that is completely flawed, then I respectfully suggest that you take it up with the rest of the world.

Cheers

Thats why you are stuck with the Patriot Act, try getting that revoked.

Cheers

[phl]

So the CC is composed of academics... Guess that means that a professor of law might be qualified, or in other infantile words, "those who can't teach, judge".

You know you would have a valid point if it was NOT in Thailand, but we are speaking about a country where English teacher(Thai) can not speak or spell.

We are talking about a country which has a "no fail" policy when it comes to education.

So your professor may well have failed in reality every single subject and yet is now the expert.

I do not think any self respecting academic would teach where his efforts can not me measured and grades can simply be bought.

Also considering the fact that Western countries do not even accept Thai drivers license and require people to do the the tests again, i am having hard time seeing a lecturer to be an expert in anything, but thats just my opinion

[tlansford]

- deleted -

Bingo, for example to decide if a law is unconstitutional, it should first exist.

Which is the point of the article.

Sorry but that is completely flawed. You can tell when it is on a piece of paper before it is made law if it is unconstitutional. All the CC have done is said, take time out whilst we scrutinize what you are doing before you pass it in to law. Once passed in law, how long would it take to retract? In the meantime, the fugitive would be back and everyone of those on terrorism charges would be off scott free, and of course would not be able to be tried again for their crimes even if the law were subsequently revoked.

I am wondering which country is your home country...

Where I come from and where I have lived, a law must first exist before it can be challenged in court.

If you think that is completely flawed, then I respectfully suggest that you take it up with the rest of the world.

Cheers

Thats why you are stuck with the Patriot Act, try getting that revoked.

Cheers

Nice try, but not a valid point.

If a law is challenged at the time that it is signed, it is often "stayed" and not enforced until the court challenges are heard and a verdict is passed. It can also be challenged at a later date.

This happens all the time.

[philw]

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

at last someone 'get's it' - have we forgotten who won the election? no it wasn't TV 'experts' Thai's voted - who won? and still the Dems and there yellow army try to subvert this great country into a puppet state of the rich and powerful

Even if you get 100% of the votes in an election the constitution and laws of the country still apply. But this is obviously too complicated for the simple red minds.

Bingo, for example to decide if a law is unconstitutional, it should first exist.

Which is the point of the article.

Double bingo.!!!!

You are of course correct.

Difficult to get the concept across though.

[GentlemanJim]

Sorry but that is completely flawed. You can tell when it is on a piece of paper before it is made law if it is unconstitutional. All the CC have done is said, take time out whilst we scrutinize what you are doing before you pass it in to law. Once passed in law, how long would it take to retract? In the meantime, the fugitive would be back and everyone of those on terrorism charges would be off scott free, and of course would not be able to be tried again for their crimes even if the law were subsequently revoked.

I am wondering which country is your home country...

Where I come from and where I have lived, a law must first exist before it can be challenged in court.

If you think that is completely flawed, then I respectfully suggest that you take it up with the rest of the world.

Cheers

Thats why you are stuck with the Patriot Act, try getting that revoked.

Cheers

Nice try, but not a valid point.

If a law is challenged at the time that it is signed, it is often "stayed" and not enforced until the court challenges are heard and a verdict is passed. It can also be challenged at a later date.

This happens all the time.

Not in Thailand.

[tlansford]

So the CC is composed of academics... Guess that means that a professor of law might be qualified, or in other infantile words, "those who can't teach, judge".

You know you would have a valid point if it was NOT in Thailand, but we are speaking about a country where English teacher(Thai) can not speak or spell.

We are talking about a country which has a "no fail" policy when it comes to education.

So your professor may well have failed in reality every single subject and yet is now the expert.

I do not think any self respecting academic would teach where his efforts can not me measured and grades can simply be bought.

Also considering the fact that Western countries do not even accept Thai drivers license and require people to do the the tests again, i am having hard time seeing a lecturer to be an expert in anything, but thats just my opinion

1) we are not talking about English teachers. You cannot claim that legal experts are not qualified when in fact it is from this pool of experts that judges are selected.

2) driver licenses - well I would say that you are stretching the link and the relevance with that one, but if you have a drivers license from someplace like Texas, then countries like Germany don't accept your license for exchange without taking their tests either.

[philw]

So the CC is composed of academics... Guess that means that a professor of law might be qualified, or in other infantile words, "those who can't teach, judge".

You know you would have a valid point if it was NOT in Thailand, but we are speaking about a country where English teacher(Thai) can not speak or spell.

We are talking about a country which has a "no fail" policy when it comes to education.

So your professor may well have failed in reality every single subject and yet is now the expert.

I do not think any self respecting academic would teach where his efforts can not me measured and grades can simply be bought.

Also considering the fact that Western countries do not even accept Thai drivers license and require people to do the the tests again, i am having hard time seeing a lecturer to be an expert in anything, but thats just my opinion

Sometimes you sound like a "teacher"

[phl]

So the CC is composed of academics... Guess that means that a professor of law might be qualified, or in other infantile words, "those who can't teach, judge".

You know you would have a valid point if it was NOT in Thailand, but we are speaking about a country where English teacher(Thai) can not speak or spell.

We are talking about a country which has a "no fail" policy when it comes to education.

So your professor may well have failed in reality every single subject and yet is now the expert.

I do not think any self respecting academic would teach where his efforts can not me measured and grades can simply be bought.

Also considering the fact that Western countries do not even accept Thai drivers license and require people to do the the tests again, i am having hard time seeing a lecturer to be an expert in anything, but thats just my opinion

1) we are not talking about English teachers. You cannot claim that legal experts are not qualified when in fact it is from this pool of experts that judges are selected.

2) driver licenses - well I would say that you are stretching the link and the relevance with that one, but if you have a drivers license from someplace like Texas, then countries like Germany don't accept your license for exchange without taking their tests either.

It does not matter what we are talking about, teacher or drivers, the point remains the same. But please feel free to point out a country where government was in the position to challenge the court? or a country where a lecturer was brought in as an expert in case against a judge?

[volk666]

...

Where I come from and where I have lived, a law must first exist before it can be challenged in court.

...

The way it is going there won't be a court to challenge anything when the law is passed.

Pretty much like Yingluck's argument against discussing Thaksin's possible benefits from reconciliation bill.

According to her logic that discussion has two stages - "too early to talk about it" and "it's too late, we already passed that into law, 555".

It's like "never mind me picking your door lock, wait until I actually take something from your house before you call the police" or "never mind me carrying out your TV - presumed innocent until proven guilty".

Edited June 9, 2012 by volk666

[gregb]

Getting back on topic for a moment....

One thing that keeps getting overlooked here is WHY the Constitution Court interpreted the rules as they did. It isn't because they wanted to overthrow the legislature, as some here and elsewhere blather on about. And for anyone who honestly thinks this was their goal, I suggest you go and crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.

They ruled this way because there was real danger of violence breaking out and people being killed. Do any of the red shirt sympathizers here actually recognize this? Would you have rather that the Constitution Court, instead of taking this very liberal view of the law which preserved the peace, refused to issue an injunction? Because the results there are predictable. Clashes were inevitable. Fighting. Death. Bloodshed.

At least be honest about this. You may not like the fact that your side's push was stunted, but at least try to have the personal integrity to recognize where your side's actions were taking the country.

Are any of you who are denouncing the Constitution Court willing to be adult enough to admit that in doing what they did, they also likely saved dozens, hundreds or possibly even thousands of lives? Or will you continue acting like children and trying to claim that returning the fugitive his ill gotten wealth and clearing him of a jail sentence is really worth the lives of innocent people?

This long ago stopped being about winning and losing. This is about the slide of a country that I call my home into civil war.

Rules are there to keep society from descending into anarchy. Sometimes those rules in their strictest interpretations are not helpful in a given situation. In this case, by interpreting the rule the way they did, the judges prevented anarchy for a little while longer. Any other interpretation by them would have been immoral. The judges are true heroes in my book.

[GentlemanJim]

Getting back on topic for a moment....

One thing that keeps getting overlooked here is WHY the Constitution Court interpreted the rules as they did. It isn't because they wanted to overthrow the legislature, as some here and elsewhere blather on about. And for anyone who honestly thinks this was their goal, I suggest you go and crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.

They ruled this way because there was real danger of violence breaking out and people being killed. Do any of the red shirt sympathizers here actually recognize this? Would you have rather that the Constitution Court, instead of taking this very liberal view of the law which preserved the peace, refused to issue an injunction? Because the results there are predictable. Clashes were inevitable. Fighting. Death. Bloodshed.

At least be honest about this. You may not like the fact that your side's push was stunted, but at least try to have the personal integrity to recognize where your side's actions were taking the country.

Are any of you who are denouncing the Constitution Court willing to be adult enough to admit that in doing what they did, they also likely saved dozens, hundreds or possibly even thousands of lives? Or will you continue acting like children and trying to claim that returning the fugitive his ill gotten wealth and clearing him of a jail sentence is really worth the lives of innocent people?

This long ago stopped being about winning and losing. This is about the slide of a country that I call my home into civil war.

Rules are there to keep society from descending into anarchy. Sometimes those rules in their strictest interpretations are not helpful in a given situation. In this case, by interpreting the rule the way they did, the judges prevented anarchy for a little while longer. Any other interpretation by them would have been immoral. The judges are true heroes in my book.

Good post. Maybe this is one reason the PTP are so pi**ed! Just like in 2010, a riot/fight/deaths would have been very beneficial to them. And lets not forget once again, the injunction was ONLY to delay the procedure, not stop it.

[tlansford]

So the CC is composed of academics... Guess that means that a professor of law might be qualified, or in other infantile words, "those who can't teach, judge".

You know you would have a valid point if it was NOT in Thailand, but we are speaking about a country where English teacher(Thai) can not speak or spell.

We are talking about a country which has a "no fail" policy when it comes to education.

So your professor may well have failed in reality every single subject and yet is now the expert.

I do not think any self respecting academic would teach where his efforts can not me measured and grades can simply be bought.

Also considering the fact that Western countries do not even accept Thai drivers license and require people to do the the tests again, i am having hard time seeing a lecturer to be an expert in anything, but thats just my opinion

1) we are not talking about English teachers. You cannot claim that legal experts are not qualified when in fact it is from this pool of experts that judges are selected.

2) driver licenses - well I would say that you are stretching the link and the relevance with that one, but if you have a drivers license from someplace like Texas, then countries like Germany don't accept your license for exchange without taking their tests either.

It does not matter what we are talking about, teacher or drivers, the point remains the same. But please feel free to point out a country where government was in the position to challenge the court? or a country where a lecturer was brought in as an expert in case against a judge?

the gov't is not challenging the court. The gov't is going about it's business of making and passing laws. The court is challenging the gov't before a law is even passed.

And legal experts comment on judicial decisions all the time... I mean really, on a non-stop basis. It boggles the mind why people here find that to be unusual.

[Skywalker69]

Getting back on topic for a moment....

One thing that keeps getting overlooked here is WHY the Constitution Court interpreted the rules as they did. It isn't because they wanted to overthrow the legislature, as some here and elsewhere blather on about. And for anyone who honestly thinks this was their goal, I suggest you go and crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.

They ruled this way because there was real danger of violence breaking out and people being killed. Do any of the red shirt sympathizers here actually recognize this? Would you have rather that the Constitution Court, instead of taking this very liberal view of the law which preserved the peace, refused to issue an injunction? Because the results there are predictable. Clashes were inevitable. Fighting. Death. Bloodshed.

At least be honest about this. You may not like the fact that your side's push was stunted, but at least try to have the personal integrity to recognize where your side's actions were taking the country.

Are any of you who are denouncing the Constitution Court willing to be adult enough to admit that in doing what they did, they also likely saved dozens, hundreds or possibly even thousands of lives? Or will you continue acting like children and trying to claim that returning the fugitive his ill gotten wealth and clearing him of a jail sentence is really worth the lives of innocent people?

This long ago stopped being about winning and losing. This is about the slide of a country that I call my home into civil war.

Rules are there to keep society from descending into anarchy. Sometimes those rules in their strictest interpretations are not helpful in a given situation. In this case, by interpreting the rule the way they did, the judges prevented anarchy for a little while longer. Any other interpretation by them would have been immoral. The judges are true heroes in my book.

Post of the day, Thanks.

[GentlemanJim]

Getting back on topic for a moment....

One thing that keeps getting overlooked here is WHY the Constitution Court interpreted the rules as they did. It isn't because they wanted to overthrow the legislature, as some here and elsewhere blather on about. And for anyone who honestly thinks this was their goal, I suggest you go and crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.

They ruled this way because there was real danger of violence breaking out and people being killed. Do any of the red shirt sympathizers here actually recognize this? Would you have rather that the Constitution Court, instead of taking this very liberal view of the law which preserved the peace, refused to issue an injunction? Because the results there are predictable. Clashes were inevitable. Fighting. Death. Bloodshed.

At least be honest about this. You may not like the fact that your side's push was stunted, but at least try to have the personal integrity to recognize where your side's actions were taking the country.

Are any of you who are denouncing the Constitution Court willing to be adult enough to admit that in doing what they did, they also likely saved dozens, hundreds or possibly even thousands of lives? Or will you continue acting like children and trying to claim that returning the fugitive his ill gotten wealth and clearing him of a jail sentence is really worth the lives of innocent people?

This long ago stopped being about winning and losing. This is about the slide of a country that I call my home into civil war.

Rules are there to keep society from descending into anarchy. Sometimes those rules in their strictest interpretations are not helpful in a given situation. In this case, by interpreting the rule the way they did, the judges prevented anarchy for a little while longer. Any other interpretation by them would have been immoral. The judges are true heroes in my book.

Post of the day, Thanks.

Agreed, and not only for the 9th which you meant but probably for the rest of the 10th to come

[volk666]

Personally I have no idea what the fuss about amendments is all about. Democrats want to stall it at any cost while PTP wants to push as fast as possible.

What's so important about it?

It would be easier to dismiss it if only Dems were acting paranoid but PTP acting in defiance of the court makes me think that perhaps they do have some sinister plans to go with it after all.

On the surface the idea that CDA would change Thai system of government sounds implausible to say the least but we all know that's just a pretense to stall. The court acted on the petitions but it's still highly unlikely they would rule the amendment as unconstitutional in the end, perhaps PTP would need to add a couple of articles to comply, that's all.

So, what's the rush to push for it at any cost and why do they need to mobilize red shirts for spurious reasons? Just like CDA is not going to turn Thailand into a republic, Dems are not going to remove the government via court orders.

What is going on there?

[Skywalker69]

Personally I have no idea what the fuss about amendments is all about. Democrats want to stall it at any cost while PTP wants to push as fast as possible.

What's so important about it?

It would be easier to dismiss it if only Dems were acting paranoid but PTP acting in defiance of the court makes me think that perhaps they do have some sinister plans to go with it after all.

On the surface the idea that CDA would change Thai system of government sounds implausible to say the least but we all know that's just a pretense to stall. The court acted on the petitions but it's still highly unlikely they would rule the amendment as unconstitutional in the end, perhaps PTP would need to add a couple of articles to comply, that's all.

So, what's the rush to push for it at any cost and why do they need to mobilize red shirts for spurious reasons? Just like CDA is not going to turn Thailand into a republic, Dems are not going to remove the government via court orders.

What is going on there?

Thaksin´s order. Get me home NOW.

[nurofiend]

Getting back on topic for a moment....

One thing that keeps getting overlooked here is WHY the Constitution Court interpreted the rules as they did. It isn't because they wanted to overthrow the legislature, as some here and elsewhere blather on about. And for anyone who honestly thinks this was their goal, I suggest you go and crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.

They ruled this way because there was real danger of violence breaking out and people being killed. Do any of the red shirt sympathizers here actually recognize this? Would you have rather that the Constitution Court, instead of taking this very liberal view of the law which preserved the peace, refused to issue an injunction? Because the results there are predictable. Clashes were inevitable. Fighting. Death. Bloodshed.

At least be honest about this. You may not like the fact that your side's push was stunted, but at least try to have the personal integrity to recognize where your side's actions were taking the country.

Are any of you who are denouncing the Constitution Court willing to be adult enough to admit that in doing what they did, they also likely saved dozens, hundreds or possibly even thousands of lives? Or will you continue acting like children and trying to claim that returning the fugitive his ill gotten wealth and clearing him of a jail sentence is really worth the lives of innocent people?

This long ago stopped being about winning and losing. This is about the slide of a country that I call my home into civil war.

Rules are there to keep society from descending into anarchy. Sometimes those rules in their strictest interpretations are not helpful in a given situation. In this case, by interpreting the rule the way they did, the judges prevented anarchy for a little while longer. Any other interpretation by them would have been immoral. The judges are true heroes in my book.

it's not a question of morality, it's a question of legality

maybe it was right for this to be halted for the good of the country but if it was in fact illegal for the cc to act as they did, then where do you draw the line on morality < legality?

do we discriminate between situations on when to act outside the law and when to not do so, based on if the said proposal has moral intentions or not?

and to this argument of saving lives, how do we know that this act will not inflame an already burning situation?

it seems to me like the pad came out, the dems threw a hissy fit and the cc obeyed.

their interpretation of the law seems shaky at best.

[GentlemanJim]

Getting back on topic for a moment....

One thing that keeps getting overlooked here is WHY the Constitution Court interpreted the rules as they did. It isn't because they wanted to overthrow the legislature, as some here and elsewhere blather on about. And for anyone who honestly thinks this was their goal, I suggest you go and crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.

They ruled this way because there was real danger of violence breaking out and people being killed. Do any of the red shirt sympathizers here actually recognize this? Would you have rather that the Constitution Court, instead of taking this very liberal view of the law which preserved the peace, refused to issue an injunction? Because the results there are predictable. Clashes were inevitable. Fighting. Death. Bloodshed.

At least be honest about this. You may not like the fact that your side's push was stunted, but at least try to have the personal integrity to recognize where your side's actions were taking the country.

Are any of you who are denouncing the Constitution Court willing to be adult enough to admit that in doing what they did, they also likely saved dozens, hundreds or possibly even thousands of lives? Or will you continue acting like children and trying to claim that returning the fugitive his ill gotten wealth and clearing him of a jail sentence is really worth the lives of innocent people?

This long ago stopped being about winning and losing. This is about the slide of a country that I call my home into civil war.

Rules are there to keep society from descending into anarchy. Sometimes those rules in their strictest interpretations are not helpful in a given situation. In this case, by interpreting the rule the way they did, the judges prevented anarchy for a little while longer. Any other interpretation by them would have been immoral. The judges are true heroes in my book.

it's not a question of morality, it's a question of legality

maybe it was right for this to be halted for the good of the country but if it was in fact illegal for the cc to act as they did, then where do you draw the line on morality < legality?

do we discriminate between situations on when to act outside the law and when to not do so, based on if the said proposal has moral intentions or not?

and to this argument of saving lives, how do we know that this act will not inflame an already burning situation?

it seems to me like the pad came out, the dems threw a hissy fit and the cc obeyed.

their interpretation of the law seems shaky at best.

But how can you say that? You are not an expert on Thai Law and the Judges are. The interpretation of article 68 seems quite clear and correct. We do not know what will be the effects in the future, but we can make judgements on the immediate potential consequences and in this case the judges were correct. The PAD did not do anything untoward. There was a peaceful process where all microphone activity stopped at 8pm and the protest only lasted as long as it needed, the reds in comparison go on all night, and we have yet to see when they go home.

Edited June 9, 2012 by GentlemanJim