Charm for the third time: After two failed attempts, Frente de Todos managed to get half the approval for the extension of the Supreme Court of Justice, With a last-minute change that took the highest number of people to 15 from 25, the ruling party managed to get the votes needed to approve the initiative in the Senate. finished giving results 36 positive votes and 33 againstHowever, by the end of the session, doubts remained as to what San Luis Eugenia Catalfamo would do: the only official senator to vote against the project was personally campaigned. Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, together for change, meanwhile, not only voted against it – arguing that the Court’s decision to expand sought to guarantee the vice president’s “impunity” – but also did not initially provide a quorum. Beyond internal and external resistance, the FdT managed to win the Senate by approving a bill that also guarantees gender equality in the Supreme Court. The initiative will now be debated in the Chamber of Deputies, where it is unlikely to be approved.,
The session began at around 3:00 pm, with advisers to the ruling party running from side to side to ensure that there were 37 minimum and required senators to provide a quorum. 20 minutes of sweat went on, but eventually FdT managed to secure a quorum with accomplices Alberto Veretilnec, Magdalena Solari Quintana and Clara Vega (since FdT has 35 senators of its own, but one for health reasons). was absent. ) “This is just the beginning,” however, warned a leader of the official Interblock, anticipating an internal conflict taking place at the FDT at the time: Although the structure of the original project of governors was modified – from 25 to 15 the highest number – to gain the support of Adolfo Rodriguez Sa and Alberto Veretillanc, family disputes between the Rodriguez Sa brothers threatened to explode the fragile official peace., The final vote of Eugenia Catalfamo, answering Alberto Rodriguez Sa, exposed how the San Luis governor preferred to face the vice president directly with a project negotiated with his brother, the senator.
Meanwhile, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner did not preside over the session, but she spent part of the day in her office on the first floor of the Senate, preparing the outline of her statement. causal road, The hasty convening of the session – it was only at night that the final text of the project was announced – was driven by the vice president himself, who wanted half the approval of the Court’s reform prepared for his defense on Friday. , One area of the judicial and economic establishment, however, also did not escape debate and covered the previous session with various gestures. For example, the United States Chamber of Commerce (Amcham) took the opportunity to publish a statement expressing its “concern” about the Supreme Court’s decision to proceed in expansion. Meanwhile, the night before, Horacio Rosatti, the president of the Supreme Court, had a meeting with all of the country’s chamberlains, focused on giving an image of power 24 hours before the Senate went ahead with reform of the High Court. was.,
Speeches, Changes and the San Luis Vote
“A better court would work to settle the inequalities. Let’s look for a federal court, with members from the south, north, east, west and center. This expansion seeks the integration of the provinces and federalism,” Guillermo said. Snowpeak is in charge of officially announcing the changes to be made to the original project. “We have an opinion proposed by the governors of the 25 members who make up the provinces, the city of Buenos Aires and the federal government. But the bell rang for 15 members, 16, fewer than 10,” he confessed, pointing to the resistance of Veretillanc. Doing – who proposed the Court of 16 – and Adolfo Rodriguez Sa – who proposed one of the 9 – who made it impossible to approve the reform of the First Court. eventually, The accepted text only modified the final composition, increasing the number of court judges from 25 to 15., Gender equality will continue to be guaranteed, but the rest of the details – such as the regionalization of selection of applicants – will be left in the hands of the rules.
“I am ashamed to deal with this issue away from the needs of the people. We are facing for the fifteenth time that the ruling party has brought an issue related to justice in this chamber and I am afraid to tell you that To end like the last one: in a profound failure.”, on behalf of Together for Change, replied Beatriz Avila, explaining what many opposition legislators took it upon themselves to uncover: the project. No matter how much approval was given to the Senate, the chances of being approved in the deputy were almost zero. , “Could it be that in future the Vice President may be convicted and to be acquitted he will have to handle and modify the Court to make it an Addicts Court?” Added the radical Fuegian, Pablo Blanco, who wore a bolilero to satirize the various numbers that had been proposed for the composition of the Court.
However, one of the speeches that generated the greatest hope was that of Eugenia Catalfamo. “Seven governors came here to present a federal, inclusive and gender diversity proposal. We took that as the FDT and gave an opinion on the project that involved 25 members. Why 25? Because 23 provinces were represented, CABA and the federal government”, began to highlight the San Luis senator, responding to Adolfo Rodriguez Sa, one of the governors who promoted the original project of 25 supreme. Gradually, Catalfamo highlighted the importance of reforming the Supreme Court and summed up his position at the end of his speech: “I am not ready to invalidate the words of the Governors who came to this House, I am not ready to invalidate the words of Rai, I think we are missing out on the historic opportunity of the Supreme Court that represents all of us. In the room, his colleagues on the bench looked at him.
Meanwhile, across the street, Rodriguez Sa, the other San Luis senator and one of those in charge of negotiating amendments to the original project, anticipated that he would vote in favor: “I think it’s up to Argentina to see.” would be great for members of the Supreme Court of Patagonia, NOA, NEA, Cuyo and not all from the center of the country”, he insisted, adding that the project was “a step forward in the quest for a more independent judiciary”.
,Now it seems that those of us who propose that there be more democracy, more ideas, more gender diversity and more federalism are dacoits, immoral., How’s the matter? How serious is the debate? So undemocratic?” The complaint, already at the time of its closure, was Alberto Veretilnec, one of the senators whose vote was crucial to being able to approve the project. “Those who defend a small court, an authoritarian model Let’s protect,” assured the Rio Negro.
“An intriguing correction, far-fetched, do you think such a serious matter can be treated as such? Does the president need this quasi-approval for tomorrow’s argument? Do you think this quasi-approval? -Can acceptance bend or modify the judicial norm? No I believe in it”, questioned the radical faction chief Louis Nedenoff, almost screaming, who assured that the decision to move forward in the Court’s reform had led to opposition. To the call for conversation with “disbelief” was added. National government. “A court of four is a manageable court and since they have many dead in their cell, it is very easy. They are very weak: those four judges are sensitive to the squeeze of power. And We cannot be in the hands of four members of the 46 million Argentine court who have nothing freer and less democratic”, replied Juliana Di Tullio.
Establishment pressure so that the reform of the Supreme Court does not progress
Entrepreneurs grouped at the Institute for Business Development of Argentina (IDEA) and the United States Chamber of Commerce in Argentina (MCHAM) rejected the Supreme Court of Justice’s reform and expressed their “concern at the mere possibility that it materializes”. .
The North American trade union questioned the Supreme Court’s intention to proceed in a “substantial expansion of members” and underlined that “the independence of the judiciary is a characteristic of every republican country, an essential requirement for life in society. rights and obligations”. “While the Justice Service faces serious challenges in responding in a timely manner to all kinds of societal demands, it is worth asking itself whether the solution to the current problems is tripling or quintupling its members. is,” mCham launched.
For its part, Idea pointed out that turning the project into law, which is being debated in Congress, “would be a measure contrary to demands for stability in the rules of the game and would therefore negatively affect investment and employment.” “There is no doubt that justice needs to be reformed to expedite its operation and to make its operation more transparent, but we are sure that the solution does not lie in increasing the number of members of the Court,” he said.
In such a situation, both the institutions asked the MLAs not to come together in the initiative. “We urge members of Congress to focus on legislation on issues that are central to the needs of the people,” IDEA said. “Evaluate these foundations deeply, looking to build solid and sustainable institutions, within a republican model of government and create the conditions for the integral development of society,” Mcham said.