Sánchez's coup against the Justice in Spain is a copy of what Chávez did in Venezuela

@ElentirENG ES 12·16·2022 · 18:37 0

Many of us have been warning for years that the left was turning Spain into a replica of Venezuela. Now we have one more reason to report it.

The articles of the Constitution that Sánchez violates to liquidate judicial independence
Yesterday Peru and now Spain: coup by the leftist govt against judicial independence

Sánchez's trap: reduce majorities from three-fifths to simple majorities

In a controversial session, yesterday the left and its separatist partners approved a reform of the Justice that liquidates judicial independence, by way of urgency and by the back door, through two simple amendments to a bill to repeal the crime of sedition. The amendments in question are 61 and 62, and they were presented jointly by the PSOE socialists and their communist partners from Podemos to modify two organic laws, that of the Judiciary (1985) and that of the Court Constitutional (1979), respectively.

Specifically, amendment 61 states that the renewal of the Constitutional Court magistrates will be done "by a three-fifths majority", but if after three months there is no agreement, the magistrates will be elected "without the need for a minimum quorum", that is, by a simple majority, and not by the aforementioned qualified majority of three-fifths. It is about an approach that openly violates the Constitution, as we saw yesterday. The approach that the socialists and communists have made with this reform is not new: it is a copy of what Hugo Chávez, admired by Podemos, did in Venezuela to liquidate the separation of powers and establish a dictatorship socialist.

Hugo Chávez already used that trap in Venezuela in 2004 to control Justice

In June 2004, the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned of the threat to judicial independence in Venezuela through a report in which it stated: "Since the year In the past, President Chávez and his allies have been adopting measures to assume control of the judiciary, eroding the separation of powers and the independence of the judicial system, through means that violate the fundamental principles of Venezuelan Constitution and International Human Rights Law."

Specifically, HRW denounced the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice (LOTSJ) approved by the leftist majority in the Venezuelan National Assembly in May of that year: "The new law to create the Supreme Court of supporters of the government increased the number of magistrates of 20 to 32, increasing two magistrates to each of the six chambers of the Court The new magistrates could be appointed by a simple majority in the National Assembly: a candidate who does not receive the support of a two-thirds majority in all three first ballots he can be appointed by a simple majority on the fourth ballot. In contrast to the new Law, the current 20 members of the Supreme Court were confirmed with a majority of at least two-thirds."

What HRW says can be verified by reading Article 8 of that law, which attributes to the National Assembly the appointment of the members of the Supreme Court by means of a qualified majority of two thirds, but then introduces a trap: if a favorable vote is not obtained during three plenary sessions , "a fourth plenary session will be convened, in which appointments will be made with the favorable vote of the simple majority of the members of the National Assembly."

PSOE and Podemos already tried to implement this anti-democratic trap in 2020

The PSOE and Podemos already tried to introduce this trap in Spain in October 2020, but that reform was temporarily deactivated due to opposition protests and pressure from the European Commission, which without However, it has remained silent in the face of the reactivation of that blow to judicial independence in recent days. As happened in Venezuela, the system approved yesterday by the left in Spain submits the judiciary to government control, destroying one of the basic pillars of democracy, which is the separation of powers. The most alarming thing is that this can happen in a member country of the European Union and the Commission does not say anything.