Red shirts call ruling Pheu Thai party to disobey charter court

[tingtongteesood]

hopefully some neutral ones that actually server the law and the constitution, not some judicial coup loving, old yellow bias ones like we have now.

Please share your deep understanding and knowledge on all of the court's current yellow shirt coup loving elitist. Can you even name one of them without google? Please tell us all about their past decisions, and who if anyone benefited from them. Tell us why they are yellow? Tell us why they are anti-democratic. Tell us why they hate Thaksin? Don't be shy to display your deep Thai political knowledge here. We love the truth when it's convincing.

New Mandela has a great article up on their site about how after the coup the system was set up to allow the courts and senate to self-select from one another in a circular structure with virtually no input from the elected representatives.3/4 members of the committee who select the NACC aren't aligned with the elected government (The opposition lead are on both the NACC and CC committees) For the Constitutional Court it's 5/7, and for the Senate it's 3/4. In other words, any input they have is meaningless as clearly demonstrated by the court rulings since the coup. It's no secret that the courts were packed by the military back in 2006 and they secured mechanisms to prevent them from ever having to answer to the public.

And as stated before, that particular website is run by a brainwashed red sheeple who kisses Thaksin's ass at ever opportunity, so don't believe everything this idiot writes....

[issanaus]

Edit due to web site limitation - sorry

Please share your deep understanding and knowledge on all of the court's current yellow shirt coup loving elitist. Can you even name one of them without google? Please tell us all about their past decisions, and who if anyone benefited from them. Tell us why they are yellow? Tell us why they are anti-democratic. Tell us why they hate Thaksin? Don't be shy to display your deep Thai political knowledge here. We love the truth when it's convincing.

New Mandela has a great article up on their site about how after the coup the system was set up to allow the courts and senate to self-select from one another in a circular structure with virtually no input from the elected representatives.

3/4 members of the committee who select the NACC aren't aligned with the elected government (The opposition lead are on both the NACC and CC committees) For the Constitutional Court it's 5/7, and for the Senate it's 3/4. In other words, any input they have is meaningless as clearly demonstrated by the court rulings since the coup. It's no secret that the courts were packed by the military back in 2006 and they secured mechanisms to prevent them from ever having to answer to the public.

What is interesting about the diagram is that PTP believes this is the way it works - now if you factor in ALL the changes that PTP tried to make to the Senate then maybe this tell us what their intention really were

!

!

[SOTIRIOS]

...their way or no way.....this attitude is typical...and rampant.......

[TimCM]

Unfortunately it has been the legalities being ignored by only one side that has brought us to this crises.

People tend to forget that it was not a party or politicians that started the anti government opposition. It was grass roots people fed up with the over the board in your face corruption of one party under the dictation of one man who brought Thailand to the mess it is in today. Remember if he cannot politically or legally get his way he also has an armed militant group on his pay roll.

Why is every one so eager to over look the grass roots people and focus on the politicians and their armed militia.

In Thailand it seems that after years of silence the grass roots people speak out and people try to slap them down rather than listening to them. If Suthep had not come along they would have been just swept away in to the you don't count land that they had been put in before and were desperately trying to escape from.

Like or don't like Suthep you have to admit he represents the forgotten ones who so many people are willing to forget again. With out him the corruption uproar would have died away long ago and the PTP would still be on the offense draining 2,2 billion baht into their off shore accounts. Where as now they find them selves on the defense.

I see where they had another train derailment in Chiang Mai. It was on track that was supposedly closed down for maintenance in fact it was in the Depot they couldn't even get out of the train station with out derailing.

Good post except you should have said 2.2 trillion. I am waiting for the Suthep is also corrupt statements & yes he has been but as you rightly pointed out he has woken up many who are fed up with the rampant corruption going on.

The SRT has been a basket case for many years probably because successive governments & their cohorts make too much money out of it on the side.

So if YL says she want to fix corruption here, you would support her as PM?

Suthep has no interest in corruption as he is just as corrupt as PT, he just wants power so he can feed at the trough

How much of his corrupt wealth has been handed in?

But.....but....but Suthep....!

You keep whining repeatedly about how amazingly corrupt he is in efforts to defend the PTP bunch of crooks - do you have any proof of his supposed corruption ? If so please share it.

Or do you only have your personal bias and rhetoric ? Would be interested to know....

Easy, Phuket land deals the disqualified from being an MP for said corruption.

No bias here, want PT out as much as any non Thai should for the good of the country. The issue is that the alternative at the moment which is your beloved yellows, are a major step backwards and would put Thailand on a very dangerous path.

If the dem party had some good reforms, then they should smash it at an election as PT are hopeless.

I just don't understand how when the protest say they should be given a country, why any foreigner would support that against the wishes of most of the locals.

So, why are you in such favour of Suthep becoming the great leader?

[bigbamboo]

....and on and on and on it goes........I feel a military coup coming on.......

Sadly for the country the longer this shambles goes on the more likely this could happen.

The politicians on both sides are failing their electorate, the police are little more than useless and so if the people do descend into anarchy the only ones who can maintain a semblance of order are the army and they're no great shakes either.

If ever Thailand needed a hero it's now.

[GeorgeO]

Sign of a maturing democracy when people from the grass roots are speaking out against being discriminated and steam rolled by the elites through their proxies military and courts. If the Dem is not getting the message and reach out to the grass roots and instead scheme and corrupt their way to the top, they will never ever win any election. Awakening time for all. The army seem to understand and stay out. The courts; well will know soon.

PDRC and Dem really have no role in any solution. Yes, I do agree that Taksin and Shin family stay out of politics and a new generation of PT leaders rise up and recognizes the need for reform. Thailand can benefit from reforms but not reform advocated by Suterp and AV that exclude outsiders from participating.

The irony of your post is palpable:

..."reach out to the grass roots and instead scheme and corrupt their way to the top"...!!

... that is a perfect description of what the puppet master has been doing for the past three years (and indeed, for the years prior to him running away)...!!

[GeorgeO]

duplicate post

Edited May 5, 2014 by GeorgeO

[GeorgeO]

I would suggest that this provides grounds to outlaw the red shirts as an entire group, or at least to announce that members of the Red Shirt UDD group are on a warning for activities potentially leading to charges of treason.

[TimCM]

I would suggest that this provides grounds to outlaw the red shirts as an entire group, or at least to announce that members of the Red Shirt UDD group are on a warning for activities potentially leading to charges of treason.

I hope this is a joke.

If not maybe you should look up the definition of treason. Then you would understand that Sutheps mob are the only ones that could be charged with such an offence in a law abiding country.

[rubl]

So if YL says she want to fix corruption here, you would support her as PM?

Suthep has no interest in corruption as he is just as corrupt as PT, he just wants power so he can feed at the trough

How much of his corrupt wealth has been handed in?

But.....but....but Suthep....!

You keep whining repeatedly about how amazingly corrupt he is in efforts to defend the PTP bunch of crooks - do you have any proof of his supposed corruption ? If so please share it.

Or do you only have your personal bias and rhetoric ? Would be interested to know....

Easy, Phuket land deals the disqualified from being an MP for said corruption.

No bias here, want PT out as much as any non Thai should for the good of the country. The issue is that the alternative at the moment which is your beloved yellows, are a major step backwards and would put Thailand on a very dangerous path.

If the dem party had some good reforms, then they should smash it at an election as PT are hopeless.

I just don't understand how when the protest say they should be given a country, why any foreigner would support that against the wishes of most of the locals.

So, why are you in such favour of Suthep becoming the great leader?

So, why do you think the poster you replied to is in such 'favour' of Suthep becoming the great leader? I may have missed it, but see no such writing in his posts

[Arkady]

This is the line in the sand everyone feared would be crossed. If the Constitutional Court ruling were ever disavowed by the Yingluck administration it would - literally - be the end of the rule of law. There is no other way to interpret it. There is no other way to measure it. The Constitutional Court is the highest court in the land. It is empowered by the Constitution. Their role is to interpret the Constitution, and their judgments have constitutional weight. That weight means that their rulings must be respected to and adhered to - without question or equivocation. By formally accepting this request from this UDD faction, Prompong and Pheu Thai have already committed a grave error. This is an unconstitutional request. To formally accept it for consideration is an unconstitutional act. It also underscores the gravely serious narrative that Pheu Thai has engaged in recent months regarding the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The UDD and Pheu Thai have become constitutional experts ever since they began disagreeing with their rulings. They can't dictate or teach the Constitution to the Constitutional Court. To do so not only looks ridiculous, it is illegal, and it is contempt of court.

The requirement of the Yingluck administration is clear. They need to immediately - today - reject this obscene request - without equivocation.They need to immediately - today - affirm that they will accept the rulings of the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission - whatever those rulings may be - without question or equivocation. Not to do so would be gravely serious.

PT's legal experts rejected Abhisit's proposal out if hand on the grounds it was unconstitutional. This UDD proposal seems to have hit the spot though.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[northernjohn]

Sign of a maturing democracy when people from the grass roots are speaking out against being discriminated and steam rolled by the elites through their proxies military and courts. If the Dem is not getting the message and reach out to the grass roots and instead scheme and corrupt their way to the top, they will never ever win any election. Awakening time for all. The army seem to understand and stay out. The courts; well will know soon.

PDRC and Dem really have no role in any solution. Yes, I do agree that Taksin and Shin family stay out of politics and a new generation of PT leaders rise up and recognizes the need for reform. Thailand can benefit from reforms but not reform advocated by Suterp and AV that exclude outsiders from participating.

Just what are you on about. It is obvious you are unreasonably biased.

A new group of PTP is what will do it. But a new group of Democrats can't do it. In other words you are saying PTP pass the baton on to the new people you have been training in the art of corruption. Do not let the new Democrats in. They don't know how to rob Thailand blind like you do. They might improve the life's of the Thai people.

You are obviously unaware of any thing. It was the grass roots that started the whole thing and they are the anti government protesters not the PTP supporters that is the red shirts. Which might be changing as I hear the red shirts are now telling the PTP what to do.

The grass roots are being led by Suthep.

[Publicus]

And when, did the red leaders and supporters, adhere to the law and court rulings, in the past?

Nothing new now, the rule of the mob, governs.

How quickly some forget. How conveniently some forget.

In 2008 the Constitution Court dismissed the People's Power Party PM Samak who consequently did honor and respect the CC by immediately vacating the office. The late Kuhn Samak retained his MP status, which had been unaffected by the Constitution Court decision, but silently vacated the office of prime minister, as ordered by the Constitution Court.

In 2006 a previous CC had dissolved the Thai Rak Thai party which quietly and peacefully went away. The effect of the 2006 CC ruling dissolving TRT was to produce a political vacuum that later was filled by the now infamous military coup d'état.

The 2008 Constitutional Court also dismissed the People's Power Party led coalition government which consequently honored and respected the Constitution Court decision by immediately vacating their offices of government.

Again in 2008, the Constitutional Court dissolved the People's Power Party itself, which immediately honored and respected the CC's ruling, thus being abolished from the political landscape by the CC ruling.

The Constitution Court in 2008 thus conducted a radical cancelling of the election outcome and completely dissolved the parliamentary coalition government.

So in 2008 the elected coalition government led by the People's Power Party quietly and respectfully obeyed the Constitution Court by vacating its offices of government. The party that received the plurality of votes, the PPP, and the coalition government it had formed in the parliament, disappeared, quietly and respectfully, thus honoring and obeying the ruling of the Constitutional Court. (Yeah, some vocal complaining was of course done, but the party and the government honored and respected the Constitution Court decision.)

I know reality is a strange place for you to be, but welcome to it anyway and try to make yourself at home with it.

You might begin by comparing and contrasting the quiet and respectful compliance of the Constitution Court by the Thai Rak Thai Party, the People's Power Party and presently by the Pheu Thai Party to the street rabble of the Democrat Party of Abhisit, Suthep, their cave man pals of the PCAD and its predecessor anarchists and notorious airport vagrants the PAD.

All the same however it's now become apparent the judges were so busy in 2008 they apparently didn't have time to comply with the constitution they were so zealously enforcing. It seems that in the commotion of the time they lost the plot concerning Sections 216 and 300 respectively. They need to correct this unfortunate oversight before they do anything else. It's the right and proper thing to do.

... and this from the poster who wrote that anti-fascist is pro-democracy.

BTW interesting that the red-shirt faction asked the government to undertake civil disobedience. Wouldn't that undermine their (i.e. the government's) position?

Civil disobedience by the government?

I think it's safe to say you raise the question because of what you say is a "red shirt faction" asking the government, in your words, to "undertake civil disobedience," and not because any civil disobedience by the government may have occurred, to which I'd agree. All the same, discussion is understandably prominent.

To qualify my agreement with you, I anyway am among the many who aren't quite certain what civil disobedience by a government might be or consist of. Historically people know the term to be used by citizens rather than governments. The self-appointed sovereign of the people, the raging lunatic Suthep ridiculously laid a false claim to it for his seize state power fascist insurrection of the PDRC and the street mobs.

In recent years national governments have declined to accept or have actively rejected court rulings, but I haven't heard many prime ministers or presidents call it civil disobedience, so I'm not sure I'd know the beast if I actually saw it. Among governments of recent years to defy their supreme or constitution court, or a court, are the UK, USA, Turkey, Israel. I'm reminded of Prez Andrew Jackson of the 1831 USA who defiantly told the Supreme Court, "You made your decision, now you go ahead and enforce it." The SCOTUS has virtually zero enforcement power..

The leaders of the countries I've mentioned are either heads of government and/or heads of state who have either actively or passively annulled the decisions of their courts. I don't know whether that might be government civil disobedience, nor do I know if that might be what this government may have in mind.

I do know the verb infinitive 'to nullify' in the political context means to show as, or to declare invalid and to make a policy or decision ineffective by counterbalancing it. To nullify also means to invalidate, annul, to make void, to quash. Further, to nullify means to cancel, strike down, to declare null and void and to make ineffective.

The way I figure it, the legitimately elected democratic government represents the sovereignty of the people.

I take it you might disagree.

[Ricardo]

The 800 pound gorilla dressed in green is waiting just off stage...

While the 800 baht guerrilla is performing on-stage.

[Eric Loh]

Sign of a maturing democracy when people from the grass roots are speaking out against being discriminated and steam rolled by the elites through their proxies military and courts. If the Dem is not getting the message and reach out to the grass roots and instead scheme and corrupt their way to the top, they will never ever win any election. Awakening time for all. The army seem to understand and stay out. The courts; well will know soon.

PDRC and Dem really have no role in any solution. Yes, I do agree that Taksin and Shin family stay out of politics and a new generation of PT leaders rise up and recognizes the need for reform. Thailand can benefit from reforms but not reform advocated by Suterp and AV that exclude outsiders from participating.

Just what are you on about. It is obvious you are unreasonably biased.

A new group of PTP is what will do it. But a new group of Democrats can't do it. In other words you are saying PTP pass the baton on to the new people you have been training in the art of corruption. Do not let the new Democrats in. They don't know how to rob Thailand blind like you do. They might improve the life's of the Thai people.

You are obviously unaware of any thing. It was the grass roots that started the whole thing and they are the anti government protesters not the PTP supporters that is the red shirts. Which might be changing as I hear the red shirts are now telling the PTP what to do.

The grass roots are being led by Suthep.

You meant to say that during Dem government, there were no corruption?? If they improve the life of Thai people, then they have a good formula to win the election. Why the boycott? Same if The grass roots are behind Suterp, why need to snatch power illegitimately instead of an election.

[mikemac]

This is the line in the sand everyone feared would be crossed. If the Constitutional Court ruling were ever disavowed by the Yingluck administration it would - literally - be the end of the rule of law. There is no other way to interpret it. There is no other way to measure it. The Constitutional Court is the highest court in the land. It is empowered by the Constitution. Their role is to interpret the Constitution, and their judgments have constitutional weight. That weight means that their rulings must be respected to and adhered to - without question or equivocation. By formally accepting this request from this UDD faction, Prompong and Pheu Thai have already committed a grave error. This is an unconstitutional request. To formally accept it for consideration is an unconstitutional act. It also underscores the gravely serious narrative that Pheu Thai has engaged in recent months regarding the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The UDD and Pheu Thai have become constitutional experts ever since they began disagreeing with their rulings. They can't dictate or teach the Constitution to the Constitutional Court. To do so not only looks ridiculous, it is illegal, and it is contempt of court.

The requirement of the Yingluck administration is clear. They need to immediately - today - reject this obscene request - without equivocation.They need to immediately - today - affirm that they will accept the rulings of the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission - whatever those rulings may be - without question or equivocation. Not to do so would be gravely serious.

PT's legal experts rejected Abhisit's proposal out if hand on the grounds it was unconstitutional. This UDD proposal seems to have hit the spot though.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I am sure "resident troll / expert on all things red and corrupt" the amazing fabio will be able to explain why Abhisit's proposal is unconstitutional and this craven act by the ThaiRouge is above board and legal.

He may even provide one of his famous links so that means the reds are right and the amart-hi so- yellow shirted- fascist thugs are wrong.

[gemini81]

Headline is funny, as the minion peasants' liege lords have disobeyed all laws since the start; and have and will until they are kicked out by force (and forcefully I hope).

[rubl]

... and this from the poster who wrote that anti-fascist is pro-democracy.

BTW interesting that the red-shirt faction asked the government to undertake civil disobedience. Wouldn't that undermine their (i.e. the government's) position?

Civil disobedience by the government?

I think it's safe to say you raise the question because of what you say is a "red shirt faction" asking the government, in your words, to "undertake civil disobedience," and not because any civil disobedience by the government may have occurred, to which I'd agree. All the same, discussion is understandably prominent.

To qualify my agreement with you, I anyway am among the many who aren't quite certain what civil disobedience by a government might be or consist of. Historically people know the term to be used by citizens rather than governments. The self-appointed sovereign of the people, the raging lunatic Suthep ridiculously laid a false claim to it for his seize state power fascist insurrection of the PDRC and the street mobs.

In recent years national governments have declined to accept or have actively rejected court rulings, but I haven't heard many prime ministers or presidents call it civil disobedience, so I'm not sure I'd know the beast if I actually saw it. Among governments of recent years to defy their supreme or constitution court, or a court, are the UK, USA, Turkey, Israel. I'm reminded of Prez Andrew Jackson of the 1831 USA who defiantly told the Supreme Court, "You made your decision, now you go ahead and enforce it." The SCOTUS has virtually zero enforcement power..

The leaders of the countries I've mentioned are either heads of government and/or heads of state who have either actively or passively annulled the decisions of their courts. I don't know whether that might be government civil disobedience, nor do I know if that might be what this government may have in mind.

I do know the verb infinitive 'to nullify' in the political context means to show as, or to declare invalid and to make a policy or decision ineffective by counterbalancing it. To nullify also means to invalidate, annul, to make void, to quash. Further, to nullify means to cancel, strike down, to declare null and void and to make ineffective.

The way I figure it, the legitimately elected democratic government represents the sovereignty of the people.

I take it you might disagree.

Since we had

"He submitted the request to the party spokesman n a letter which was received by spokesman Prompong Nopparit asking the Pheu Thai party and the government to undertake civil disobedience against the court’s performance of its duty."

I assume that the 'government' means the Pheu Thai related part, like caretaker PM, cabinet, etc., etc. All those have sworn oaths upon entering their function to uphold the constitutions, laws, etc., etc. Since Ms. Yingluck 'cannot' resign she remains in function and the same goes for her cabinet members and so. Civil disobedience seems impossible for them.

Of course this may be a tricky way to get Ms. Yingluck to resign in order to be civil disobedient

[Benmart]

History is rife with examples where law, the constitution, the courts, etc. were ignored. Often times this has resulted in civil war, bloodshed and chaos.

Unfortunately, the lessons of history seem to be lost in the passion of the present political situation.

[michaelscottfan]

History is rife with examples where law, the constitution, the courts, etc. were ignored. Often times this has resulted in civil war, bloodshed and chaos.

Unfortunately, the lessons of history seem to be lost in the passion of the present political situation.

It's also often led to no major consequences at all. The law has to be applied fairly to be taken seriously and the courts long ago lost credibility with the vast majority of the Thai population, and have been treated as nothing but a joke outside of Thailand for years now.

[rubl]

History is rife with examples where law, the constitution, the courts, etc. were ignored. Often times this has resulted in civil war, bloodshed and chaos.

Unfortunately, the lessons of history seem to be lost in the passion of the present political situation.

It's also often led to no major consequences at all. The law has to be applied fairly to be taken seriously and the courts long ago lost credibility with the vast majority of the Thai population, and have been treated as nothing but a joke outside of Thailand for years now.

You state this as if it's absolute facts, colse to something obvious and for all to see.

Well, it's not obvious and not even facts. Unless you have some prove ?

[h90]

History is rife with examples where law, the constitution, the courts, etc. were ignored. Often times this has resulted in civil war, bloodshed and chaos.

Unfortunately, the lessons of history seem to be lost in the passion of the present political situation.

It's also often led to no major consequences at all. The law has to be applied fairly to be taken seriously and the courts long ago lost credibility with the vast majority of the Thai population, and have been treated as nothing but a joke outside of Thailand for years now.

first time that I hear that....yes the lower courts are corrupt and the criminal court is under direct control of the regime but the higher courts are well regarded. And the Shinawatras sueing people like no one else so it seems they are trusting them.

[Publicus]

... and this from the poster who wrote that anti-fascist is pro-democracy.

BTW interesting that the red-shirt faction asked the government to undertake civil disobedience. Wouldn't that undermine their (i.e. the government's) position?

Civil disobedience by the government?

I think it's safe to say you raise the question because of what you say is a "red shirt faction" asking the government, in your words, to "undertake civil disobedience," and not because any civil disobedience by the government may have occurred, to which I'd agree. All the same, discussion is understandably prominent.

To qualify my agreement with you, I anyway am among the many who aren't quite certain what civil disobedience by a government might be or consist of. Historically people know the term to be used by citizens rather than governments. The self-appointed sovereign of the people, the raging lunatic Suthep ridiculously laid a false claim to it for his seize state power fascist insurrection of the PDRC and the street mobs.

In recent years national governments have declined to accept or have actively rejected court rulings, but I haven't heard many prime ministers or presidents call it civil disobedience, so I'm not sure I'd know the beast if I actually saw it. Among governments of recent years to defy their supreme or constitution court, or a court, are the UK, USA, Turkey, Israel. I'm reminded of Prez Andrew Jackson of the 1831 USA who defiantly told the Supreme Court, "You made your decision, now you go ahead and enforce it." The SCOTUS has virtually zero enforcement power..

The leaders of the countries I've mentioned are either heads of government and/or heads of state who have either actively or passively annulled the decisions of their courts. I don't know whether that might be government civil disobedience, nor do I know if that might be what this government may have in mind.

I do know the verb infinitive 'to nullify' in the political context means to show as, or to declare invalid and to make a policy or decision ineffective by counterbalancing it. To nullify also means to invalidate, annul, to make void, to quash. Further, to nullify means to cancel, strike down, to declare null and void and to make ineffective.

The way I figure it, the legitimately elected democratic government represents the sovereignty of the people.

I take it you might disagree.

Since we had

"He submitted the request to the party spokesman n a letter which was received by spokesman Prompong Nopparit asking the Pheu Thai party and the government to undertake civil disobedience against the court’s performance of its duty."

I assume that the 'government' means the Pheu Thai related part, like caretaker PM, cabinet, etc., etc. All those have sworn oaths upon entering their function to uphold the constitutions, laws, etc., etc. Since Ms. Yingluck 'cannot' resign she remains in function and the same goes for her cabinet members and so. Civil disobedience seems impossible for them.

Of course this may be a tricky way to get Ms. Yingluck to resign in order to be civil disobedient

Um, I wouldn't be surprised if you and your PDRC guys ran into some problems concerning these very points. It's not clear to me yet the government is seriously considering a so-called civil disobedience or that it may be engaged in the doctrine of civil disobedience, or shall be engaged in it.

All the same however, far better minds than mine are at work at this kind of stuff. I'm sure any lawyer worth his big bucks knows radical times call for radical answers and approaches. I'd bet certain lawyers overseas as well as in Thailand and their clients would be considering legal and judicial countermeasures, possibilities, options, for their purely pragmatic efficacy.

That having been said, for one thing the government could get an order from another court or courts in Bangkok requiring it to remain in office as the caretaker government despite any other court ruling. Despite any other court ruling, yes, that's what I said. Obtaining an order of a Bangkok court in support of their position could hardly be called civil disobedience. To the contrary, obeying an order of a court would be civil obedience in the face of the jurisdictional excesses of other institutions of the government.

Such an order(s) could be made based on almost any somewhat applicable existing law. Any such court order(s) would not need to cite the constitution. Almost any even remotely applicable law would do. A judge or judges issuing such an order would thereby avoid overstepping their authority / jurisdiction and also avoid a confrontation with the CC over its own exclusive authority / jurisdiction. The CC does have a defined, restricted, specific jurisdiction; the many other courts have respective jurisdictions the CC does not have.

The government getting a court order from a judge(s) in Bangkok would give it some judicial basis and some claim in jurisprudence to assert its justification to remain in office, should it feel compelled or choose to do so. (Once court decisions and court orders start flying around it would fall upon the courts themselves settle the matters of law, from jurisdiction to authority to applicability etc etc.)

Surely the government will find one judge (and certainly more than 1, 2 or 3 judges) to issue an order of a court to the government that would provide a governance rationale and a basis in Thai law to remain in office no matter what, should it pursue that avenue for any reason.

Equally, however, a judge(s) could order the PM to remain in office based on the constitutional prohibition that prevents the PM from resigning. Any rationale would do for a judge / court to issue such an order, from national security to the good public order. (Recall a court ordered the government, the CAPO, the police to stop stopping PDRC demonstrators because the demonstrators were exercising their civil rights.)

This is Thailand so any judge(s) can find anything they want to find in almost any law, as we've seen repeatedly over the years, so that would be nothing new. It would be radical in the present radical circumstance for a court to issue such an order to the government. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

Speculation being as it may be.

[rubl]

Since we had

"He submitted the request to the party spokesman n a letter which was received by spokesman Prompong Nopparit asking the Pheu Thai party and the government to undertake civil disobedience against the court’s performance of its duty."

I assume that the 'government' means the Pheu Thai related part, like caretaker PM, cabinet, etc., etc. All those have sworn oaths upon entering their function to uphold the constitutions, laws, etc., etc. Since Ms. Yingluck 'cannot' resign she remains in function and the same goes for her cabinet members and so. Civil disobedience seems impossible for them.

Of course this may be a tricky way to get Ms. Yingluck to resign in order to be civil disobedient

Um, I wouldn't be surprised if you and your PDRC guys ran into some problems concerning these very points. It's not clear to me yet the government is seriously considering a so-called civil disobedience or that it may be engaged in the doctrine of civil disobedience, or shall be engaged in it.

All the same however, far better minds than mine are at work at this kind of stuff. I'm sure any lawyer worth his big bucks knows radical times call for radical answers and approaches. I'd bet certain lawyers overseas as well as in Thailand and their clients would be considering legal and judicial countermeasures, possibilities, options, for their purely pragmatic efficacy.

That having been said, for one thing the government could get an order from another court or courts in Bangkok requiring it to remain in office as the caretaker government despite any other court ruling. Despite any other court ruling, yes, that's what I said. Obtaining an order of a Bangkok court in support of their position could hardly be called civil disobedience. To the contrary, obeying an order of a court would be civil obedience in the face of the jurisdictional excesses of other institutions of the government.

Such an order(s) could be made based on almost any somewhat applicable existing law. Any such court order(s) would not need to cite the constitution. Almost any even remotely applicable law would do. A judge or judges issuing such an order would thereby avoid overstepping their authority / jurisdiction and also avoid a confrontation with the CC over its own exclusive authority / jurisdiction. The CC does have a defined, restricted, specific jurisdiction; the many other courts have respective jurisdictions the CC does not have.

The government getting a court order from a judge(s) in Bangkok would give it some judicial basis and some claim in jurisprudence to assert its justification to remain in office, should it feel compelled or choose to do so. (Once court decisions and court orders start flying around it would fall upon the courts themselves settle the matters of law, from jurisdiction to authority to applicability etc etc.)

Surely the government will find one judge (and certainly more than 1, 2 or 3 judges) to issue an order of a court to the government that would provide a governance rationale and a basis in Thai law to remain in office no matter what, should it pursue that avenue for any reason.

Equally, however, a judge(s) could order the PM to remain in office based on the constitutional prohibition that prevents the PM from resigning. Any rationale would do for a judge / court to issue such an order, from national security to the good public order. (Recall a court ordered the government, the CAPO, the police to stop stopping PDRC demonstrators because the demonstrators were exercising their civil rights.)

This is Thailand so any judge(s) can find anything they want to find in almost any law, as we've seen repeatedly over the years, so that would be nothing new. It would be radical in the present radical circumstance for a court to issue such an order to the government. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

Speculation being as it may be.

'my' PDRC guys?

As for finding a suitable, mallable judge, well, may I say "that's typical for you and your Pheu Thai and UDD/red-shirt guys'?

[issanaus]

Since we had

"He submitted the request to the party spokesman n a letter which was received by spokesman Prompong Nopparit asking the Pheu Thai party and the government to undertake civil disobedience against the courts performance of its duty."

I assume that the 'government' means the Pheu Thai related part, like caretaker PM, cabinet, etc., etc. All those have sworn oaths upon entering their function to uphold the constitutions, laws, etc., etc. Since Ms. Yingluck 'cannot' resign she remains in function and the same goes for her cabinet members and so. Civil disobedience seems impossible for them.

Of course this may be a tricky way to get Ms. Yingluck to resign in order to be civil disobedient

Um, I wouldn't be surprised if you and your PDRC guys ran into some problems concerning these very points. It's not clear to me yet the government is seriously considering a so-called civil disobedience or that it may be engaged in the doctrine of civil disobedience, or shall be engaged in it.

All the same however, far better minds than mine are at work at this kind of stuff. I'm sure any lawyer worth his big bucks knows radical times call for radical answers and approaches. I'd bet certain lawyers overseas as well as in Thailand and their clients would be considering legal and judicial countermeasures, possibilities, options, for their purely pragmatic efficacy.

That having been said, for one thing the government could get an order from another court or courts in Bangkok requiring it to remain in office as the caretaker government despite any other court ruling. Despite any other court ruling, yes, that's what I said. Obtaining an order of a Bangkok court in support of their position could hardly be called civil disobedience. To the contrary, obeying an order of a court would be civil obedience in the face of the jurisdictional excesses of other institutions of the government.

Such an order(s) could be made based on almost any somewhat applicable existing law. Any such court order(s) would not need to cite the constitution. Almost any even remotely applicable law would do. A judge or judges issuing such an order would thereby avoid overstepping their authority / jurisdiction and also avoid a confrontation with the CC over its own exclusive authority / jurisdiction. The CC does have a defined, restricted, specific jurisdiction; the many other courts have respective jurisdictions the CC does not have.

The government getting a court order from a judge(s) in Bangkok would give it some judicial basis and some claim in jurisprudence to assert its justification to remain in office, should it feel compelled or choose to do so. (Once court decisions and court orders start flying around it would fall upon the courts themselves settle the matters of law, from jurisdiction to authority to applicability etc etc.)

Surely the government will find one judge (and certainly more than 1, 2 or 3 judges) to issue an order of a court to the government that would provide a governance rationale and a basis in Thai law to remain in office no matter what, should it pursue that avenue for any reason.

Equally, however, a judge(s) could order the PM to remain in office based on the constitutional prohibition that prevents the PM from resigning. Any rationale would do for a judge / court to issue such an order, from national security to the good public order. (Recall a court ordered the government, the CAPO, the police to stop stopping PDRC demonstrators because the demonstrators were exercising their civil rights.)

This is Thailand so any judge(s) can find anything they want to find in almost any law, as we've seen repeatedly over the years, so that would be nothing new. It would be radical in the present radical circumstance for a court to issue such an order to the government. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

Speculation being as it may be.

'my' PDRC guys?

As for finding a suitable, mallable judge, well, may I say "that's typical for you and your Pheu Thai and UDD/red-shirt guys'?

Cake anyone?

[rubl]

Since we had

"He submitted the request to the party spokesman n a letter which was received by spokesman Prompong Nopparit asking the Pheu Thai party and the government to undertake civil disobedience against the courts performance of its duty."

I assume that the 'government' means the Pheu Thai related part, like caretaker PM, cabinet, etc., etc. All those have sworn oaths upon entering their function to uphold the constitutions, laws, etc., etc. Since Ms. Yingluck 'cannot' resign she remains in function and the same goes for her cabinet members and so. Civil disobedience seems impossible for them.

Of course this may be a tricky way to get Ms. Yingluck to resign in order to be civil disobedient

Um, I wouldn't be surprised if you and your PDRC guys ran into some problems concerning these very points. It's not clear to me yet the government is seriously considering a so-called civil disobedience or that it may be engaged in the doctrine of civil disobedience, or shall be engaged in it.

All the same however, far better minds than mine are at work at this kind of stuff. I'm sure any lawyer worth his big bucks knows radical times call for radical answers and approaches. I'd bet certain lawyers overseas as well as in Thailand and their clients would be considering legal and judicial countermeasures, possibilities, options, for their purely pragmatic efficacy.

That having been said, for one thing the government could get an order from another court or courts in Bangkok requiring it to remain in office as the caretaker government despite any other court ruling. Despite any other court ruling, yes, that's what I said. Obtaining an order of a Bangkok court in support of their position could hardly be called civil disobedience. To the contrary, obeying an order of a court would be civil obedience in the face of the jurisdictional excesses of other institutions of the government.

Such an order(s) could be made based on almost any somewhat applicable existing law. Any such court order(s) would not need to cite the constitution. Almost any even remotely applicable law would do. A judge or judges issuing such an order would thereby avoid overstepping their authority / jurisdiction and also avoid a confrontation with the CC over its own exclusive authority / jurisdiction. The CC does have a defined, restricted, specific jurisdiction; the many other courts have respective jurisdictions the CC does not have.

The government getting a court order from a judge(s) in Bangkok would give it some judicial basis and some claim in jurisprudence to assert its justification to remain in office, should it feel compelled or choose to do so. (Once court decisions and court orders start flying around it would fall upon the courts themselves settle the matters of law, from jurisdiction to authority to applicability etc etc.)

Surely the government will find one judge (and certainly more than 1, 2 or 3 judges) to issue an order of a court to the government that would provide a governance rationale and a basis in Thai law to remain in office no matter what, should it pursue that avenue for any reason.

Equally, however, a judge(s) could order the PM to remain in office based on the constitutional prohibition that prevents the PM from resigning. Any rationale would do for a judge / court to issue such an order, from national security to the good public order. (Recall a court ordered the government, the CAPO, the police to stop stopping PDRC demonstrators because the demonstrators were exercising their civil rights.)

This is Thailand so any judge(s) can find anything they want to find in almost any law, as we've seen repeatedly over the years, so that would be nothing new. It would be radical in the present radical circumstance for a court to issue such an order to the government. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

Speculation being as it may be.

'my' PDRC guys?

As for finding a suitable, mallable judge, well, may I say "that's typical for you and your Pheu Thai and UDD/red-shirt guys'?

Cake anyone?

No thanks, but having been busy I missed lunch ... ...

[h90]

Headline is funny, as the minion peasants' liege lords have disobeyed all laws since the start; and have and will until they are kicked out by force (and forcefully I hope).

If the court kicks her out, but she won't go?

Will the police boss take her? Recently there was some talk between him and Suthep, maybe he feels the wind of change?

Will Prayut end his hibernation and have a talk with her? Or will he roll out the tanks?

Or will be everything continue like now.....she continues to (not) work as caretaker puppet premier?

Will she be banned for 5 years, and if yes does it matter, or will the EC just ignore it in exchange of some goodies from Dubai?

Will Suthep go home, but won't be arrested as this will be ignored as well?

Will some military underling see that Thailand is going to fail and take charge?