Hi Court Fallout

Don't know how this bodes for the next set of rulings when the Constitutional court are already threatening to sue each other over this one.

By KIM HOUSEGO - Associated Press Writer
BOGOTA, Colombia - (AP) A judge on Colombia's highest court
on Friday threatened to sue a fellow member for accusing him of taking a
bribe to rule in favor a law that would allow President Alvaro Uribe to run
for re-election.
Constitutional Court justice Rodrigo Escobar announced Thursday that
fellow court magistrate Jaime Araujo had accused him of accepting money to
vote in favor of the re-election law. He called the accusation "untrue and
calumnious."
"He (Araujo) told me that I was eager to get re-election approved
because the government would remunerate me for the service," Escobar said.
He said he plans to sue Araujo for slander.
The Constitutional Court approved legislation, adopted earlier by
Congress, that allows presidents to run for a second term. Previously, a
presidential re-election was banned.
Court president Jose Manuel Cepeda confirmed that Araujo made the
accusations against Escobar during a closed-door session on Oct. 9. "The
incident lasted 15 seconds," Cepeda said. "It's a very serious thing, but
the court was able to continue working."
Government officials have not commented on the case.
In an interview on Friday, Araujo declined to discuss his reported
fallout with Escobar, but said he was ready to answer in court "all the
issues that he raised."
Araujo _ who voted to maintain the ban on re-election _ criticized
Uribe on Friday, saying the president had "ignored the problems of the
country and redistribution of wealth." He said Uribe had focused entirely on
defeating a leftist insurgency militarily at the expense of unemployment,
education and health programs.
Before Uribe's name can appear on the ballot for next year's
elections, he must wait for another, related ruling on the Electoral
Guarantees Law, intended to ensure that incumbents seeking second terms do
not abuse their power for electoral gain. The ruling is expected next month.

Polls show Uribe, a staunch Washington ally, would win next May's
presidential race if permitted to run, thanks to his tough policies against
leftist rebels and drug traffickers.

By Mr. Hollywood on Oct 21, 2005, 14:02 in Politics & the war.

juancegomez says on Oct 21, 2005, 18:29:

The accusation made by Araujo was made informally during the moments before a formal session began, as a result of his anger at his fellow's suggestion that deliberations continue Friday (in spite of Araujo opposing it because allegedly he had appointments to take care of), and not due to a realistic assessment of any evidence.

It's like saying "you're in a hurry because I think you're licking Uribe's boots", or something with the same general effect. The other guy could well have answered "you're stalling because I think your hatred for Uribe and his policies is blinding your judgement". But Escobar didn't answer in equivalent terms.

Still, that didn't stop the rest of the Court's discussion from going on in relative normality. These eight men and one woman are professionals and have a high respect for the law, despite their different interpretations of it. They're not spoiled brats as far as is known, and they have not hesitated to rule both for **and** against the government's perceived interests in many other instances, when they are against the Constitution.

But, logically, once this became public knowledge due to press leaks and the sessions had ended, Escobar (who, again, didn't do anything other than suggest that Araujo's comments be included in the session's record) decided to sue Araujo for difammation **if** he doesn't excuse himself.

Araujo is stubborn and has said that he is thinking of resigning due to this event, but hasn't decided yet.

Still, I think that the Court, given its record, will be able to handle this as calmly as possible, whatever Araujo decides and whatever Congress decides to do about the alleged difammation charges. I hope I'm not wrong, but I really do admire the magistrates and their overall professionalism, including Araujo's. I doubt that the next round of sessions will be too affected by this, after the initial media show.

IMHO, Araujo's heart and mind may be in the right place in a sense, but his mouth and his temper took a wrong and unneeded turn.

platano says on Oct 21, 2005, 18:53:

"...are professionals and have a high respect for the law..." Sounds like a case of disproportionate personal development... the judges undoubtedly have very sharps minds and good mental powers... but perhaps a lack interpersonal skills or have egos a bit too sensitive. This is not uncommon among people who are brilliant and shine in one part of their person but at the same time, and for many reasons that are largely circumstantial, have neglected other areas of personal development. It can even happen in individuals who are very highly developed spiritually with incredible spiritual insight, but don't know how to carry on a successful relationship with the opposite sex or may be prone to abuse of the power that comes with the spiritual laurels ("gurus" have fallen many times in that respect)

I only hope juancegomez that you are correct in your assessment of their professionalism.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

Sr Tertius says on Oct 22, 2005, 10:34:

Beware of hot-blooded hispanic judges "Lots of the hispanic cultures and rituals remind me very much of the French Cajun culture of South Louisiana (...) You get something good done and someone starts slinging mud and crying that they have been victimized by bribes on the other side"

Oh please! These guys have to debate and persuade each other on the most controversial issues of the nation, and they do it, apparently, with awesome civility. A poorly thought commentary slips through (one! just one!), and Escobar, who like any other Constitutional Court magistrate puts a high premium on his reputation, has to respond. And he waits for a decision to be reached BEFORE even mentioning this incident. These guys are more formal than Swedish royalty!

Nah, that's not fun. We'd rather imagine these guys like Enrique Iglesias and Antonio Banderas, all brown and sweaty, holding a penis fight over some minor disagreement. Those hot-blooded hispanic judges! That's why Colombia is such a backwards nation!

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 22, 2005, 17:05:

Come on, Tertius You know those guys where wearing sweaty guayaberas and smoking big cigars the whole time they waited to see which side's bribe was bigger.

Oh, wait, I got them confused with the US Supremes in Bush Vs. Gore, 2002.