Thai Court Dismisses Complaint Against Pheu Thai Party

[animatic]

workers of the world unite!

big change is coming !

Get a new philosophy teacher,

one versed in this century not the 19th.

[tlansford]

on a side note, there's that word "landslide" again.

On another side note, what happened to the 'judicial activism' you were howling about so pitifully yesterday? Still think its a giant conspiracy for the Constitution Court to *consider* constitutional issues?

not only was it a perfect example of judicial activism, so far one of the main features of this decision has been to give themselves more power with the ruling as they began by not only explaining how they took it up, but ruling that they have this right in the future as well.

Yes, well spotted and that does have serious and in my opinion, not good implications.

The CC has successfully put itself into the position whereby it can rule on proposed legislation as it is being discussed and before being passed by an elected house.

It has also called on elected MP's to explain their reasons for voting the way do.

This is cannot be a good precedent and, in my opinion, sets the stage again for another problem not too far away.

Interestingly enough, it is in fact the judiciary which is destroying the independence between the different branches of government.

A rather odd situation IMO.

It will be interesting to see more details on the court's verdict as that becomes available.

[tlansford]

on a side note, there's that word "landslide" again.

On another side note, what happened to the 'judicial activism' you were howling about so pitifully yesterday? Still think its a giant conspiracy for the Constitution Court to *consider* constitutional issues?

not only was it a perfect example of judicial activism, so far one of the main features of this decision has been to give themselves more power with the ruling as they began by not only explaining how they took it up, but ruling that they have this right in the future as well.

Well I don't agree with you there. How is this ruling judicial activism, given that the decision seems entirely consistent with what is in the charter? And yes, the Constitution Court will continue to have jurisdication over constitutional issues, that's their job. Is that controversial and/or surprising?

What you call activism, I see as officials carrying out their responsibilities. They gave the complaint due consideration, they have dismissed it, and now the uncertainty over the procedure has been removed which is good for everyone. That's a court carrying out its function.

Then let's just disagree for now and wait for more detailed information on the ruling itself.

[Skywalker69]

In a democracy, elections matter. They confer upon the victor the right to govern. You may like the result, you may not. But the process must be more respected than the outcome. Good decision.

Do you for one second think that the Red Shirt would have respected another outcome? Yes or no. Edited July 13, 2012 by Skywalker69

[Skywalker69]

RT @tulsathit: TR @news1005fm: Red shirt leader Thida says she disagrees with court verdict "on virtually every count".

Sour faced old puss.

Bet she suffers from chronic anorgasmia.

No, it must be PMS.

[Thaddeus]

on a side note, there's that word "landslide" again.

Landslide? Out of 9, only 7?

Not even a total victory.

you don't think 77.77% is a victory?

edit: CORRECTION there were only 8 judge not 9 as one was excused along time ago so the victory is 88.88% - a LANDLSIDE VICTORY

Well done (maths is not your strong suit though)

Considering all 8 judges were presented with the same evidence and heard all the same testimonies, I would not have been surprised if the result had been 8-0, in fact, if the judges were completely impartial and only worked to the letter of the law, it should be 8-0.

Split decisions should only happen with an appointed 12 good men and true, not judges.

I'm more curious as to why one of them took a different stand to the other seven.

[OzMick]

edit: CORRECTION there were only 8 judge not 9 as one was excused along time ago so the victory is 88.88% - a LANDLSIDE VICTORY

It appears that you are mathematically challenged. 7/8 = 87.5%

[binjalin]

on a side note, there's that word "landslide" again.

Landslide? Out of 9, only 7?

Not even a total victory.

you don't think 77.77% is a victory?

edit: CORRECTION there were only 8 judge not 9 as one was excused along time ago so the victory is 88.88% - a LANDLSIDE VICTORY

Well done (maths is not your strong suit though)

Considering all 8 judges were presented with the same evidence and heard all the same testimonies, I would not have been surprised if the result had been 8-0, in fact, if the judges were completely impartial and only worked to the letter of the law, it should be 8-0.

Split decisions should only happen with an appointed 12 good men and true, not judges.

I'm more curious as to why one of them took a different stand to the other seven.

well we agree on ONE thing - sorry about the small % differential but it doesn't effect the result 87.5% ok ?

[mrtoad]

on a side note, there's that word "landslide" again.

On another side note, what happened to the 'judicial activism' you were howling about so pitifully yesterday? Still think its a giant conspiracy for the Constitution Court to *consider* constitutional issues?

not only was it a perfect example of judicial activism, so far one of the main features of this decision has been to give themselves more power with the ruling as they began by not only explaining how they took it up, but ruling that they have this right in the future as well.

Yes, well spotted and that does have serious and in my opinion, not good implications.

The CC has successfully put itself into the position whereby it can rule on proposed legislation as it is being discussed and before being passed by an elected house.

It has also called on elected MP's to explain their reasons for voting the way do.

This is cannot be a good precedent and, in my opinion, sets the stage again for another problem not too far away.

Thankfully, you have no influence.

Checks and balances are what is needed.

[hellodolly]

on a side note, there's that word "landslide" again.

Landslide? Out of 9, only 7?

Not even a total victory.

you don't think 77.77% is a victory?

edit: CORRECTION there were only 8 judge not 9 as one was excused along time ago so the victory is 88.88% - a LANDLSIDE VICTORY

You are wrong. He asked to be excused because he is a honest man and feared for his life if he voted his conscience.

[nurofiend]

People will now say the decision is because of the threats, or maybe candy boxes from overseas, or whatever. I think it is the right decision. I am not crazy about the idea of handing PT a blank check (or cheque as some of you prefer) but until there is actually a draft written and it is clear what they want to change then there is no real basis for stopping the process. Later, if they propose wiping out the checks and balances or changes laws which directly benefit Thaksin, the formal complaints, based on actual proposed wording, can be raised.

exactly, well said.

and i think this is the point that people on this site like myself were trying to make all along... wait to see what's in it before you complain, but some people wouldn't hear that point... just like the democrats didn't.

glad the judges ruled fairly on this.

the democrats claim was ludicrous of course and had no basis in reality or legality... and they knew it.

[scorecard]

People will now say the decision is because of the threats, or maybe candy boxes from overseas, or whatever. I think it is the right decision. I am not crazy about the idea of handing PT a blank check (or cheque as some of you prefer) but until there is actually a draft written and it is clear what they want to change then there is no real basis for stopping the process. Later, if they propose wiping out the checks and balances or changes laws which directly benefit Thaksin, the formal complaints, based on actual proposed wording, can be raised.

exactly, well said.

and i think this is the point that people on this site like myself were trying to make all along... wait to see what's in it before you complain, but some people wouldn't hear that point... just like the democrats didn't.

glad the judges ruled fairly on this.

the democrats claim was ludicrous of course and had no basis in reality or legality... and they knew it.

Well I guess that gets more than counter balanced by the numerous wilful lies and untruths spoken in and out of the chamber by the jolly red clown.

[Thai at Heart]

People will now say the decision is because of the threats, or maybe candy boxes from overseas, or whatever. I think it is the right decision. I am not crazy about the idea of handing PT a blank check (or cheque as some of you prefer) but until there is actually a draft written and it is clear what they want to change then there is no real basis for stopping the process. Later, if they propose wiping out the checks and balances or changes laws which directly benefit Thaksin, the formal complaints, based on actual proposed wording, can be raised.

exactly, well said.

and i think this is the point that people on this site like myself were trying to make all along... wait to see what's in it before you complain, but some people wouldn't hear that point... just like the democrats didn't.

glad the judges ruled fairly on this.

the democrats claim was ludicrous of course and had no basis in reality or legality... and they knew it.

A super ruling. Maybe someone should canvas their opinion about the constitutional rules for creating a constitution after a coup just to get it on record.

Then at least everyone knows all the rules

Lololol

[Yunla]

Do you for one second think that the Red Shirt would have respected another outcome? Yes or no.

No. More so, reading between the lines of UDD/PTP words and actions, I firmly believe they do not want a constitution court at all, or a judiciary or a functioning democracy. PTP want a one-party state where Thaksin (and then later his son) is making all higher judgements on law, subdelegated to his Committee Men. I think he is an insane control-freak and a despotic dictator down to his little red boots. It is intolerable to Thaksin that any judges, even supreme court judges, can pass any kind of ruling on him, regardless of his guilt or his wrongheadedness. I don't think he or his followers will be happy until all non-PTP regulatory forces are removed from society, except for PTP-approved judicial agencies that are purely decorative and follow orders from Thaksin.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Yunla

[Skywalker69]

Do you for one second think that the Red Shirt would have respected another outcome? Yes or no.

No. More so, reading between the lines of UDD/PTP words and actions, I firmly believe they do not want a constitution court at all, or a judiciary or a functioning democracy. PTP want a one-party state where Thaksin (and then later his son) is making all higher judgements on law, subdelegated to his Committee Men. I think he is an insane control-freak and a despotic dictator down to his little red boots. It is intolerable to Thaksin that any judges, even supreme court judges, can pass any kind of ruling on him, regardless of his guilt or his wrongheadedness. I don't think he or his followers will be happy until all non-PTP regulatory forces are removed from society, except for PTP-approved judicial agencies that are purely decorative and follow orders from Thaksin.

"Overcome" to THAKSINLAND.

[Moruya]

Do you for one second think that the Red Shirt would have respected another outcome? Yes or no.

No. More so, reading between the lines of UDD/PTP words and actions, I firmly believe they do not want a constitution court at all, or a judiciary or a functioning democracy. PTP want a one-party state where Thaksin (and then later his son) is making all higher judgements on law, subdelegated to his Committee Men. I think he is an insane control-freak and a despotic dictator down to his little red boots. It is intolerable to Thaksin that any judges, even supreme court judges, can pass any kind of ruling on him, regardless of his guilt or his wrongheadedness. I don't think he or his followers will be happy until all non-PTP regulatory forces are removed from society, except for PTP-approved judicial agencies that are purely decorative and follow orders from Thaksin.

Exactly. Same as he tried last time.

There are those of us who can see and there are those who are blind - intentionally or through ignorance

[binjalin]

People will now say the decision is because of the threats, or maybe candy boxes from overseas, or whatever. I think it is the right decision. I am not crazy about the idea of handing PT a blank check (or cheque as some of you prefer) but until there is actually a draft written and it is clear what they want to change then there is no real basis for stopping the process. Later, if they propose wiping out the checks and balances or changes laws which directly benefit Thaksin, the formal complaints, based on actual proposed wording, can be raised.

exactly, well said.

and i think this is the point that people on this site like myself were trying to make all along... wait to see what's in it before you complain, but some people wouldn't hear that point... just like the democrats didn't.

glad the judges ruled fairly on this.

the democrats claim was ludicrous of course and had no basis in reality or legality... and they knew it.

agreed wholeheartedly

[binjalin]

on a side note, there's that word "landslide" again.

Landslide? Out of 9, only 7?

Not even a total victory.

you don't think 77.77% is a victory?

edit: CORRECTION there were only 8 judge not 9 as one was excused along time ago so the victory is 88.88% - a LANDLSIDE VICTORY

You are wrong. He asked to be excused because he is a honest man and feared for his life if he voted his conscience.

evidence???

[animatic]

Do you for one second think that the Red Shirt would have respected another outcome? Yes or no.

No. More so, reading between the lines of UDD/PTP words and actions, I firmly believe they do not want a constitution court at all, or a judiciary or a functioning democracy. PTP want a one-party state where Thaksin (and then later his son) is making all higher judgements on law, subdelegated to his Committee Men. I think he is an insane control-freak and a despotic dictator down to his little red boots. It is intolerable to Thaksin that any judges, even supreme court judges, can pass any kind of ruling on him, regardless of his guilt or his wrongheadedness. I don't think he or his followers will be happy until all non-PTP regulatory forces are removed from society, except for PTP-approved judicial agencies that are purely decorative and follow orders from Thaksin.

Exactly. Same as he tried last time.

There are those of us who can see and there are those who are blind - intentionally or through ignorance

PTP resembles nothing more than a medieval Lords court of sycophants,

scrabbling for position and for the lords good graces and gifts.

How that reality can be reconciled with the street reds rhetoric of a workers paradise and better life for all the poor, is a matter for generations of historical revisionists to squabble over.

Edited July 14, 2012 by animatic

[Reasonableman]

Get ready for the Dems to throw their collective rattles out of the pram. Hahaha!

Looks like another false prophesy. How disappointing. Must be time to cry coup coup coup, or accuse the cc of lack of objectivity, what other "wolf" cries up the sleeve? Too desperate, Birdpoo, it's quite embarrassing.

[binjalin]

Do you for one second think that the Red Shirt would have respected another outcome? Yes or no.

No. More so, reading between the lines of UDD/PTP words and actions, I firmly believe they do not want a constitution court at all, or a judiciary or a functioning democracy. PTP want a one-party state where Thaksin (and then later his son) is making all higher judgements on law, subdelegated to his Committee Men. I think he is an insane control-freak and a despotic dictator down to his little red boots. It is intolerable to Thaksin that any judges, even supreme court judges, can pass any kind of ruling on him, regardless of his guilt or his wrongheadedness. I don't think he or his followers will be happy until all non-PTP regulatory forces are removed from society, except for PTP-approved judicial agencies that are purely decorative and follow orders from Thaksin.

Exactly. Same as he tried last time.

There are those of us who can see and there are those who are blind - intentionally or through ignorance

PTP resembles nothing more than a medieval Lords court of sycophants,

scrabbling for position and for the lords good graces and gifts.

How that reality can be reconciled with the street reds rhetoric of a workers paradise and better life for all the poor, is a matter for generations of historical revisionists to squabble over.

and the Dems are truly 'for the people' so much 'for the people' that the ex-DPM son would not dream of taking land that was not his - I mean that wouldn't be right would it?

[Felt 35]

Do you for one second think that the Red Shirt would have respected another outcome? Yes or no.

No. More so, reading between the lines of UDD/PTP words and actions, I firmly believe they do not want a constitution court at all, or a judiciary or a functioning democracy. PTP want a one-party state where Thaksin (and then later his son) is making all higher judgements on law, subdelegated to his Committee Men. I think he is an insane control-freak and a despotic dictator down to his little red boots. It is intolerable to Thaksin that any judges, even supreme court judges, can pass any kind of ruling on him, regardless of his guilt or his wrongheadedness. I don't think he or his followers will be happy until all non-PTP regulatory forces are removed from society, except for PTP-approved judicial agencies that are purely decorative and follow orders from Thaksin.

Exactly.

[animatic]

quote name='Skywalker69' timestamp='1342179615' post='5481582'

Do you for one second think that the Red Shirt would have respected another outcome? Yes or no.

No. More so, reading between the lines of UDD/PTP words and actions, I firmly believe they do not want a constitution court at all, or a judiciary or a functioning democracy. PTP want a one-party state where Thaksin (and then later his son) is making all higher judgements on law, subdelegated to his Committee Men. I think he is an insane control-freak and a despotic dictator down to his little red boots. It is intolerable to Thaksin that any judges, even supreme court judges, can pass any kind of ruling on him, regardless of his guilt or his wrongheadedness. I don't think he or his followers will be happy until all non-PTP regulatory forces are removed from society, except for PTP-approved judicial agencies that are purely decorative and follow orders from Thaksin.

Exactly. Same as he tried last time.

There are those of us who can see and there are those who are blind - intentionally or through ignorance

PTP resembles nothing more than a medieval Lords court of sycophants,

scrabbling for position and for the lords good graces and gifts.

How that reality can be reconciled with the street reds rhetoric of a workers paradise and better life for all the poor, is a matter for generations of historical revisionists to squabble over.

and the Dems are truly 'for the people' so much 'for the people' that the ex-DPM son would not dream of taking land that was not his - I mean that wouldn't be right would it?

So far unproven and only a charge.

Similar charges have been leveled at Thaksin associates on Samui too.

Just the usual tit for tat charges so far, which is how the clans wage financial warfare here.

Edited July 14, 2012 by animatic

[Moruya]

and the Dems are truly 'for the people' so much 'for the people' that the ex-DPM son would not dream of taking land that was not his - I mean that wouldn't be right would it?

I believe he showed the DSI the land deeds and the maps and they retreated.

[metisdead]

A flaming post has been removed.

[Ferangled]

"The court found that complaints against plans by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party to amend the constitution -- drawn up under the military junta that deposed her divisive brother Thaksin -- were unfounded."

Strange choice of words from the judges, would expect them to at least try to appear neutral... or is that simply the media bias creeping in... I would have thought "drawn up under the divisive military junta", would have been more accurate, as it was them deposing Thaksin that struck the most divisive blow to Thailand, surely?

Surely that is the words of the writer, and not the actual words of the judges.

That was obvious to me.

Surely that's why I started my post "Strange choice of words from the judges, would expect them to at least try to appear neutral... or is that simply the media bias creeping in..."

I would have thought that was quite obvious!

[Ferangled]

"The court found that complaints against plans by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's party to amend the constitution -- drawn up under the military junta that deposed her divisive brother Thaksin -- were unfounded."

Strange choice of words from the judges, would expect them to at least try to appear neutral... or is that simply the media bias creeping in... I would have thought "drawn up under the divisive military junta", would have been more accurate, as it was them deposing Thaksin that struck the most divisive blow to Thailand, surely?

Surely not. Thaksin was dividing the profits first.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Surely that's just normal, everyday Thai business practice... deposing him was the most divisive act as far as the impact on the Thai population...

Surely bank rolling the Red shirts and organizing Red villages is more divisive. If you ain't Red you can't live there. That's divisive.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Before or after the military junta? In my opinion the noticeable division of Thai society coincided with the military junta deposing Thaksin and the wording in the article is deliberately biased. I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of the matter, just noting the deliberate bias in the writing.

As for the "red villages", my personal experiences are that "Yellow" areas aren't much better for "Reds". We live down in Phuket, staunchly Dem, and the family from Isaan that take care of our estate (who incidentally are really nice, hard working and not politically motivated at all), can't leave their pick up in town for fear it will be vandalised because of the up country plates...it has been twice already.

They couldn't give a toss about Thaksin or Abhisit, they just want to earn a crust and take care of their family. These rich elites wrangling for power have little to do with their reality. I think that's representative of most Thai citizens, who when pushed might take a side but increasingly find themselves being dragged into what's become a ridiculous charade while really they just want to get on with their lives.

I find TV members with such strong convictions either way in this quite amusing, especially when all parties are so obviously self serving and corrupt. It becomes a bit like a "My Dad's tougher than your Dad" argument in a playground, but with the Reds/ Yellows taking the paternal role, and toughness being substituted with corruption/ deceit!

[Moruya]

A flaming post has been removed.

Do you have the HTML code for such a thing?