The Senate asked the Supreme Court for explanations in the case that investigates irregularities in the social work of the Judiciary. After the winter recess, the ruling bloc in the Upper House decided to reinvigorate the judicial agenda for the second half of the legislative year and the eye will be on the Supreme Court of Justice. In this line, the justice commission issued an opinion in which the senators demanded that the president of the Court, Horace Rosattiwhich provides some details about the criminal case that investigates the state of social work (and that involves the supreme Juan Carlos Macqueda). In turn, while the ruling party continues to negotiate to have the numbers that allow it to approve the expansion of the Court, it will seek to advance with an initiative that relaxes the requirements to promote popular consultations.
“We are not accusing anyone of anything. We are requesting information because It seems very serious to us that citizens who have the life, property and freedom of 47 million people in their hands are being investigated for the commission of common criminal offenses such as the cases of Judges Maqueda and Rosatti.“, he pointed oscar parrilli, Cristina Fernández’s right hand in the Senate -with whom she maintains a daily dialogue-, author of the project (together with Silvia Sapag) and president of the commission in which it was being debated. The initiative raises a dozen questions through which he demands that Rosatti give explanations about the cause that investigates the emptying of the social work of the Judicial Power that he processes Judge Ariel Lijo and that the tax process Carlos Stormelli intends to close. “It makes us doubt if we are before judges who usurp their power in order to protect themselves from common crimes that they commit and that they use only to overwhelm the powers of the State,” questioned the Kirchnerist senator, alluding to the “swap plan” between Stornelli and Maqueda that Raúl Kollmann and Irina Hauser had denounced in this newspaper regarding the exchange of favors between the judge of the Court and the prosecutor.
“This is the same Court that arrogates legislative powers and put into effect a law that has already been repealed and stormed type superman the Judicial Council“added Parrilli, before a semi-empty room. And, as usual, the senators of Together for Change members of the Justice Commission they got up from the chairs when it was time to discuss a project that questions the Supreme Court. The debate in committee for the expansion of the Court was the same: no JxC senator participated in the debate arguing that “it was Cristina’s agenda.” “to confession of part test relay. Obviously the block of senators from Cambiemos agrees with the appointment of members of the Court by decree and its current operation,” Parrilli said ironically.
The request for a report, which is now ready to be dealt with on the floor, is the first step in a judicial agenda that Kirchnerism will seek to install in the Senate in the last half of the year. Concerned about the advancement of the cause of public works in Santa Cruz, several Kirchner leaders are convinced that the Judiciary seek outlaw any application for CFK ahead of 2023. In this context, the bet is “show teeth” and take advantage of the scope of the Upper House to advance initiatives that expose or dispute the actions of the Supreme Court. The most important is that it seeks to expand it to 25 members, which already has an opinion but the FdT has not managed to put together the numbers to approve it. The FdT has 35 senators of its own and needs 2 more to reach a quorum, which could be achieved with the support of Clara Vega and Magdalena Solari Quintana. The problem is that the block has its own rebel –the puntano Adolfo Rodriguez Saa— that a Court of 25 members is reluctant to vote, which, in a scenario of already very tight numbers, clouds the panorama.
At the same time, however, Kirchnerism will seek to promote two initiatives that refer to the popular queries. One of them, which bears the signature of Grill, establishes that any bill may be submitted to a binding popular consultation, except for those that deal with reforms to the Constitution, the Budget or tax, criminal or International Treaty issues. It also allows the call for a referendum to be held in one session with the support of a simple majority (currently it must be by special majority, that is, two-thirds). The other project, Juliana Di Tullio, establishes that the consultation can be carried out on the same date on which an election is held (today prohibited). The objective of the FdT behind these initiatives is to find tools that allow it to overcome the legislative obstacles that, due to not having a majority in either of the two chambers, have prevented them from advancing in many initiatives. The case of projects linked to Justice are keysas there is not a single initiative –from the judicial reform to that of the Council of the Judiciary– that has not ended up asleep in Deputies due to the enormous parity of forces with the opposition.