The judge will turn 75 on December 29 and will leave the country’s main judicial court with three members.
Days before reaching the age that causes his departure from the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nationthe judge Juan Carlos Maqueda He starred in a ceremony where he referred to the future of democratic institutions. In this framework, and given the intention of the ruling party to appoint two judges by decree, the highest court has already established the mechanism to continue its operation with three members.
The event was held at the Courtyard of Honor of the Palace of Justice and two of the members of the Supreme Court of Justice: Carlos Rosenkrantz and Horacio Rossati. The latter, president of the Court, defined Maqueda as a “rare example of an official who has gone through, with suitability and exemplary conduct, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers“and highlighted that he was “a reference and guide” for his peers and a “voice always listened to, respected, considered and wise.” The other member of the highest court who will continue in his position, Ricardo Lorenzetti was absent from the ceremony.
When taking the floor, Maqueda reiterated his criticism of the current national government: “We cannot remain adrift from the men who at this moment worship personalitywho believe themselves to be prophetic and put democratic coexistence at risk.” In that sense, he considered that ““Democracy had better moments than now.” and asked “to return to moderation, prudence and independence of the Judiciary.”
supreme court.jpg
CSJA
“Although it may seem out of fashion, we have to defend the institutions. Maybe not in this country at this moment, but in the world we live in. The institutions of democracy and the republic, “Rule of law institutions run serious risks”said Maqueda, who will turn 75 on December 29, and concluded: “From the Judiciary, with independence and impartiality, “We have to make clear our defense of the institutions, which to this day have been preserved by the three powers of the State.”.
The Supreme Court of Justice regulated a mechanism to operate with three judges
The Supreme Court issued an agreement that Its objective is to regulate the drawing of the so-called “co-judges” who are the ones who must act in the event that the majorities are not reached to issue a sentence. The decision contains a message addressed to the Executive Branch and the explicit institutional “concern” it expresses for a “small” Court. In essence, it prevails to subtract arguments for the need for a decree that appoints Ariel Lijo and Manuel García Mansilla to a “commission” under the pretext of a paralysis in the rulings.
Through 16 pages, the judges signed Agreement 41 that establishes the mechanism for the drawing of co-judges between the presidents of the Federal and National Chambers. This procedure prevents the files from being paralyzed due to a possible lack of majorities (three concurring votes, which as of December 30 would imply unanimity between Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Ricardo Lorenzetti). For cases in which majorities are not reached, the process of drawing lots for co-judges is expedited and the file is prevented from being paralyzed between the members.
They argue from the Palace of Courts that Legal security would be guaranteed – another message to the Executive – by establishing that it is the same co-judge (the one who is drawn) who always resolves analogous cases, to avoid dispersion of jurisprudence (opposing opinions depending on who has to rule, if different co-judges are drawn for similar cases), which would alter majorities and it would generate that depending on the draw, there would be different possible destinations for the files.
Additionally, The Supreme Court added a message to the Senate and the Executive Branch announcing that the lists of co-judges for cases in which the presidents of the Federal Chambers cannot join the Court have expired.. These lists were generally made up of registered attorneys who, at the proposal of the Executive, had to be voted on by two-thirds of the Senate to be valid. Some time ago, the Court canceled this replacement mechanism and opted to convene the presidents of the Chambers.
In turnthere is a ruling that orders that these lists of lawyers go through the same Senate validation process as a regular judge of the Court, consensus that the policy did not renew when previous lists expired and when it was intended to enforce lists voted by simple majority.
Source: Ambito
I am an author and journalist who has worked in the entertainment industry for over a decade. I currently work as a news editor at a major news website, and my focus is on covering the latest trends in entertainment. I also write occasional pieces for other outlets, and have authored two books about the entertainment industry.
