"Baxa-box" instead of constitutional argumentation: When the Constitutional Court resigns itself to justifying its actions
I am commenting on the current popular creativity reacting to the controversial preliminary measure of the Constitutional Court in the dispute over the NATO summit in Ankara. The so-called "Baxa-box", which is circulating on social networks, accurately describes the deeper problem, which is the resignation of the court under the leadership of Josef Baxa to careful and convincing justification of key steps with a clear reference to the Constitution. If an institution that previously built respect through bulletproof legal argumentation issues a resolution based only on operational practices, it cannot be argued with at all from a professional point of view, which fundamentally undermines the seriousness of the entire judiciary.
Baxa-box. At least something works reliably in this heat.
It came via WhatsApp. In the old days, I would not have shared something like that, out of respect for the Constitutional Court. But in ancient times, the Constitutional Court also carefully justified its decisions with references to the Constitution, thus creating that respect.
In case of disagreement, an expert or an academician can argue with the consistently reasoned decision of the Constitutional Court on the pages of constitutional law journals. What the ÚS issued yesterday cannot be disputed - there is nothing to argue with.
I understand that it's hot and nobody in Brno wanted to work - but then they should have waited for the first cooler day :)
Diskuse
Komentáře
K videu: "Baxa-box" instead of constitutional argumentation: When the Constitutional Court resigns itself to justifying its actions
Join the discussion. Sign-in is free.
Načítám komentáře...