Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
The judiciary has become party to politics. The opposition is targetting the government through the judiciary. Every week there is some petition filed against the government.
In the game of cricket, if anyone is stupid enough to chew the ball openly or dances on the pitch to deteriorate it, then umpire, 3rd party and ICC are bound to interfere.... the blunders PPPP have made, the mega corruption scandals they have covering or are involved in brings in the 3rd Party...so before blaming judiciary and opposition advice govt to get its house in order...
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
Do you really not understand what the game is all about? PPP desperately needs something for sloganeering as it has everything but performance. Military is not willing to send them packing. Now it's all on judiciary to give them their election card. **PPP is doing everything in its power to annoy the judiciary **so that Zardari gets something to show in poll campaign.
By convincing the opposition to lodge complaints in the courts, for example?
[QUOTE]
PPP and all of its supporters need to understand that democracy is not all about completing term, it also means performance.
[/QUOTE]
I am NOT a supporter of PPP but that is quite beside the point. If they haven't performed then let the electorate throw them out. Why don't we trust the electorate to hold them accountable?
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
In the game of cricket, if anyone is stupid enough to chew the ball openly or dances on the pitch to deteriorate it, then umpire, 3rd party and ICC are bound to interfere.... the blunders PPPP have made, the mega corruption scandals they have covering or are involved in brings in the 3rd Party...so before blaming judiciary and opposition advice govt to get its house in order...
yeah, i'll call up zardari on his cell and tell him to get his house in order!!
Pakistan just doesn't have a democratic culture. In the past, opposition parties looked to the military to strike down the government so that they could have a chance. Little did they know that the military was going to keep the spoils. This time around, the military refuses to interfere so they run to the judiciary every week with a new complaint. The government can hardly function if it is busy trying to save its a$$ all the time.
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
By convincing the opposition to lodge complaints in the courts, for example?
If tomorrow government abolishes the supreme court, you want the opposition to stay indoors?
I am NOT a supporter of PPP but that is quite beside the point. If they haven't performed then let the electorate throw them out. Why don't we trust the electorate to hold them accountable?
While I am fully in favour of sending a government home by not re-electing it for another term, I also find that this is the most lenient way for punishing politicians who bring your country to its knees in five years. Electoral mandate is not a 5-year licence to loot the country at your will and go telling people not to elect you again. If I accumulate 5 biilion in 5 years, what problem I possibly may have by not getting re-elected?
Tell me one more thing, suppose there are 10 parties in a country and all join hands under the umbrella of democracy. They make a coalition, win poll and assume the reins of the country. Since they have absolute majority, they can make laws to cripple the judiciary and make their tenure indefinite. What do I do now?
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
If tomorrow government abolishes the supreme court, you want the opposition to stay indoors?
That was in response to you suggesting that the government is doing all this drama to win the next election. I guess the opposition is a party to that plan then since it is helping the government in creating drama.
[QUOTE]
While I am fully in favour of sending a government home by not re-electing it for another term, I also find that this is the most lenient way for punishing politicians who bring your country to its knees in five years. Electoral mandate is not a 5-year licence to loot the country at your will and go telling people not to elect you again. If I accumulate 5 biilion in 5 years, what problem I possibly may have by not getting re-elected?
Tell me one more thing, suppose there are 10 parties in a country and all join hands under the umbrella of democracy. They make a coalition, win poll and assume the reins of the country. Since they have absolute majority, they can make laws to cripple the judiciary and make their tenure indefinite. What do I do now?
[/QUOTE]
No one is saying that they have a licence to loot. That's why you should strengthen the institutions so that they are able to take care of such politicians. Electoral accountablity is the only way the system is going to evolve. If you think SC is going to be able to strong arm the politicians into being honest, you are deluding yourself.
The focus of the CJ should be on reforming the judiciary which is still pathetic for the average guy. Let bygones be bygones. Remember, this CJ twice took oath under PCO yet he had to audacity to punish those judges who took it against his wishes.
You can't deny that the judiciary is overzealouse against PPP and the CJ is acting as the de-facto chief executive of the country. Why, for example, did they waste 6 months on that memo issue. It was a waste of time from the beginning. Yet, it was made out to be a matter of life and death. That is how every issue is blown up in Pakistan.
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
Judiciary is not against the PPP, it is against the government which is hell-bent on 'colonizing' its own country. You are confusing two different things.
[QUOTE]
Why, for example, did they waste 6 months on that memo issue. It was a waste of time from the beginning. Yet, it was made out to be a matter of life and death. That is how every issue is blown up in Pakistan.
[/QUOTE]
Oh well, I did not know that "it was a waste of time from the beginning." Did you inform the court about it? And from now on, will it be you and me telling the court what is waste of time and what not?
You need to understand that even if you are elected, you are still answerable to someone other than the voters.
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
yeah, i'll call up zardari on his cell and tell him to get his house in order!!
Pakistan just doesn't have a democratic culture. In the past, opposition parties looked to the military to strike down the government so that they could have a chance. Little did they know that the military was going to keep the spoils. This time around, the military refuses to interfere so they run to the judiciary every week with a new complaint. The government can hardly function if it is busy trying to save its a$$ all the time.
And he will reply, what else i am doing from last 4+ years, i have already stashed some few hundred millions US$ in foreign banks and this Judiciary not been there, it could have been billions...
Why give chance to opposition, had there been no corruption in Rental power project where Asian Development Bank and the then Finance Minister Shokat Tareen had reservation, no body had to go to court... had there been no corruption or no looting on Hajies then there was no need to go to court by the some sitting minister against his colleague... thing is, it is PPP govt which have looto thay phuto policy and have given bigger chance to the Opposition to file cases against them in Judiciary...
Now please tell us there was no corruption in the Rental Power Projects and Asian Development Bank, Shokat Tareen and everyone else is just picking on Raja Rental... and PPP govt for that??? and so is the case in other cases..
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
PPP and all of its supporters need to understand that democracy is not all about completing term, it also means performance.
And who is suppose to be the judge of that? Voters or the unelected judges? Btw, democracy may not be about completing terms, but performance must be measure by voters. After all, isn't the concept of a democracy based on idea that ultimate destiny of a nation lies in hands of its people?
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
And who is suppose to be the judge of that? Voters or the unelected judges? Btw, democracy may not be about completing terms, but performance must be measure by voters. After all, isn't the concept of a democracy based on idea that ultimate destiny of a nation lies in hands of its people?
Indeed voters
lets fire alll Judges from pakistan, let the voters decide the cases, let us write-off consitution and let the voters decide about it, and whatelse, let us burn every copy of Quran or anyother religious book available in Pakistan and let the voters or in this case Mullahs and fanatics decide what is shariyat...
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
^^ I don't get it. What exactly is your point? Judges & voters have separate roles. In a democracy voters give mandate to elected govt & if its fails to performs its voters who (at least theoretically) throw them out. As for the Constitution, it a basic structure of governance & good/bad performance is not listed in the constitution.
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
^^ I don't get it. What exactly is your point?** Judges & voters have separate roles.** In a democracy voters give mandate to elected govt & if its fails to performs its voters who (at least theoretically) throw them out. As for the Constitution, it a basic structure of governance & good/bad performance is not listed in the constitution.
This is news to me, all i hear from PPP leadership and its followers that People read voters are the judge and Judges are judge of nothing...
Now in democracy, voters elected the govt, but isn't the in the same democracy, judges take actions (read hear cases and passes judgements)... now if you are saying that Judges should have let the Reco-dec go along, they should have not heard the pleas against Rental Power Scam, they should have not taken action Haj Scandals and should have allowed it then i am sorry my friend, i am not illiterate Jiyala, who will buy this logic... i must say, you need to sell this to the PPP site ( if there is any) or to the Jahil Jiyalas of PPP through out the world, they will buy it!!!
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
This is news to me, all i hear from PPP leadership and its followers that People read voters are the judge and Judges are judge of nothing...
Actually, we're talking about the role of judiciary in a democracy & you're talking about something else. As for corruption, its part of Pakistani society & if you have ever bribed anyone you're all part of the problem.
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
Actually, we're talking about the role of judiciary in a democracy & you're talking about something else.** As for corruption, its part of Pakistani society** & if you have ever bribed anyone you're all part of the problem.
and if judiciary is taking action against it then it wrong at the part of judiciary.... corruption should be promoted in the society....
Re: Supreme Court Should Exercise Judicial Restraint on Presidential Immunity
So, any evil that becomes widespread should not be considered an evil anymore? Should not we go to the roots?
This case is not new. People are behaving as if SC found out about Haram Khor couple’s money only this year. The $60m is not new. People defending Zardari on this issue should reflect on their own conscience.
IK is an angel directly descended from heaven.