Late on Tuesday night, after dozens of protesters were wounded and dozens more detained, our Supreme Tribunal of Justice issued a statement that couldn’t be read because their webpage was down.

Here it is, in all its self-incriminatory glory:

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in a meeting of its Board, in the exercise of the powers conferred to it though articles 254 and 267 of the National Constitution and articles 2 and 3 of the Framework Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, releases this statement to national and international public opinion.

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice, through the Constitutional Chamber, in its role as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, is the guarantor of constitutionality and legality in the country and rejects any action against the institutional stability of the Republic and any violation of due process, essential for the exercise of Public Power.

This Tribunal rejects the actions of a sector of the National Assembly that seeks to erode political and democratic stability and the constitutional order of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

This sector, currently in contempt of court, persists in ignoring what our Constitution establishes in article 265, where it clearly states that the concurrence of two branches of government is needed to proceed with the removal of the justices of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, after the Citizen Power declares that a severe violation has taken place.

The body of public servants of this Judicial Branch will continue to provide answers to the needs of our country in compliance with legality and prudent and strict interpretation of our Constitution, thus preserving calm and peace in our country.

We categorically reject any action that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the justices of the Constitutional Chamber, who have acted in accordance with constitutional mandates to safeguard the democratic order and social peace.

We urge the national legislative body to comply with the Constitution and the laws to preserve the Rule of Law to safeguard Branch autonomy and independence.

We agree with the statements issued by Pope Francis and support dialogue as the only path to protect peace, always within the boundaries of national sovereignty.

In Caracas, on April 4th, 2017.

WTF is a “prudent interpretation”of the Constitution?

17 COMMENTS

  1. “WTF is a “prudent interpretation”of the Constitution?”

    For chavismo, anything that allows them to continue doing whatever the f**k they want to keep screwing the people.

  2. Of course, they don’t explain that this “contempt of court” thingy was totally made up by Chavismo.
    Espero que la gente afuera ya no caiga…

  3. When reason is abandoned the only path is violence, and Chavismo has long embraced this option.

    My question is where will the next heavy blow come from. Street protest les resbala a los chavistas. Sure, it is blow, but one that they just shake off without major consequences. History shows this much. Will there be a credit default in the next week? That would be new and it is unclear how will Chavismo withstand it. Ultimately the biggest purveyor of violence is the military, they will have to pagar y cobrar los muertos that Chavismo demands.

  4. It reminded me of Lula’s party official note on the Venezuelan crisis. It’s mindblowing too! It makes one want to throw up!

    They also babble something like: “We categorically reject any action that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the justices of the Constitutional Chamber, who have acted in accordance with constitutional mandates to safeguard the democratic order and social peace.”

    http://www.pt.org.br/pt-divulga-nota-em-apoio-a-venezuela/

  5. “This sector, currently in contempt of court, persists in ignoring what our Constitution establishes in article 265, where it clearly states that the concurrence of two branches of government is needed to proceed with the removal of the justices of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, after the Citizen Power declares that a severe violation has taken place.”

    The “severe violation” obviously did take place, trying to shut down the AN, no less.. The corrupt crooks of el TSJ do not give any reasons for the alleged “contempt of court”, of course, ‘desacato’ a que, exactamente?

    Now if it’s true that there’s an article 265, why are the deputies of the AN wasting their time in meetings trying to remove the justices? Heck, even without any such articles, they will never be able to remove anyone in this corrupt narco-regime. So it’s just a symbolic endeavor, I guess, for future reference. While Chavismo is in power, those thieves at the TSJ will continue to get richer and richer, comfortably doing nothing except for the occasional barbarism or Draconian rule.

  6. And on top of that supposed article 265 :

    “La iniciativa del congreso necesita ser respaldada ahora por al menos dos de los tres miembros del Poder Ciudadano -formado por la fiscal, el contralor y el defensor del pueblo- en su mayoría alineados con el presidente Nicolás Maduro.”

    Heck, those inept justices who just perpetrated the autogolpe de estado will probably get a salary raise, plus a juicy Christmas bonus and paid vacations.

  7. Although I hate Maduro, the TSJ and all the other thugs in the government with all my guts for abusing their power and for defecating on the constitution, one thing needs to be said: if we want to keep our right to feel justified indignation for what they have been doing, we cannot do the same.

    Read this: http://prodavinci.com/blogs/cual-es-el-procedimiento-para-remover-a-los-magistrados-del-tsj-por-jose-ignacio-hernandez-g/

    Regardless of the fact that the members of the “Republican Moral Council” are also part of the thugs in the government I mentioned above (Luisa Ortega is still a thug, despite of her statements last week), we cannot complain about violations of the constitution if we are going to violate it ourselves.

  8. in article 265, where it clearly states that the concurrence of two branches of government is needed to proceed with the removal of the justices of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. two branches of government does not equal “una mayoría calificada de las dos
    terceras partes de sus integrantes (de la AN)”. Error de traduccion o “error” del TSJ?

Leave a Reply