Casado affirms that the socialist attitude reaffirms him in his refusal to negotiate the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary
It is not usual for the Government to disagree in public before a judicial resolution, but in this case the decision of the Constitutional Court against the state of alarm has stung and has caused it to dispense with the usual formal objections. The main complaint of the Government is, as the Defense Minister said on Wednesday, the lack of a “sense of State” that, in her opinion, the members of the court of guarantees have shown.
The Minister of the Interior and former magistrate of the National High Court elaborated on this thesis during the inauguration of a prison in Soria and defended the right of the Executive to “disagree” with the court’s resolution, although the disparity of criteria will not have any effect and I was left in a mere kick. Fernando Grande-Marlaska explained today that the Executive is not satisfied and “disagrees with the sentence in a reasonable and adequate manner and from a legal point of view.” The ruling, he specified, “is complied with,” but not shared. “That,” he added, “is typical of the rule of law.”
The minister recalled that the Constitutional Court itself in April last year agreed with the declaration of the state of alarm, and fifteen months later it has defended a contrary position. It would be necessary to do, he continued, “a minimal reflection on the reason” for the change of position of the magistrates and why “it has taken so long to issue a resolution.” Marlaska did not want to speak of black hands nor did he resort to the conspiracy theories that circulate, but he was referring to the appeal presented by Vox and that, against the government’s forecasts, has been endorsed by the court.
The measured language of Marlaska contrasted with the harshness of his colleague in the Council of Ministers Irene Montero, who framed the ruling of the Constitutional Court in “the kidnapping” of the PP of the constitutional bodies. That, and not the sentence itself, is “the most serious,” said the head of Equality and number two of United We Can.
Run over to independence
For the leader of the PP, it is not about discrepancies or lack of sense of the State, it is about interference by the Government in the decisions of the Constitutional Court. The government response, Pablo Casado denounced, is an “outrage against the separation of powers” and the independence of the Judiciary. What else can be thought, he stressed, if a magistrate has denounced “pressure” from the former vice president Carmen Calvo to reject the Vox appeal. He was referring to the words of Encarnación Roca, who revealed that he had received calls in this regard from former number two of the Government.
Given this attitude of the Government, concluded Casado, the PP is not going to sit down to negotiate the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary, in office for two and a half years. “We are not going to renew the Judiciary if (the Government) does not accept a reinforcement of judicial independence.” An argument that is added to those defended on other occasions by the popular ones to keep the governing body of the judges blocked, such as the refusal to allow Podemos to appoint members of the Council or the attacks of the minority partner of the government coalition on the Crown.
But the PP does not stop there in its offensive against the Government. He has requested the appearance of Pedro Sánchez in the plenary session of Congress to explain what “responsibilities” he will assume before the sentence that declared the confinement unconstitutional during the first state of alarm. A request that will not go anywhere because it will be rejected next week in the Permanent Council of the Chamber, but that shows that the PP is not going to release the dam.