• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Venezuela's Maduro decried as 'dictator' after Congress annulled

Carjosse

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
16,516
Reaction score
8,229
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
From Reuters:
Opposition leaders branded Venezuela's socialist President Nicolas Maduro a "dictator" on Thursday after the Supreme Court took over the functions of Congress and pushed a lengthy political standoff to new heights.

There was swift and widespread international condemnation of the de facto annulment of the National Assembly, where the opposition won a majority in late 2015 amid an unprecedented economic crisis that has seen Maduro's popularity plummet.

The head of the 34-nation Organization of International States (OAS), Luis Almagro, said the Venezuelan court had dealt the final blows to democracy and accused Maduro's "regime" of carrying out a "coup."

Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala and Panama expressed strong concerns while Peru withdrew its envoy after what it termed a rupture of democracy.

The United States described the move as a "serious setback for democracy in Venezuela" while the European Union called for a "clear electoral calendar" going forward.
Click to expand...

Maduro has gone full dictator, to no one's surprise. Should sanctions be placed on Maduro and Venezuela?
 
A lesson on what happens when you successfully delegitimize one of the major branches of government. In Venezuela it's Congress, here it's the judiciary.
 
Cardinal said:
A lesson on what happens when you successfully delegitimize one of the major branches of government. In Venezuela it's Congress, here it's the judiciary.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. :roll: The situations aren't even REMOTELY comparable, not even in the same universe. Not least because all Trump did was run his mouth, and that's all he CAN do, whereas in Venezuela, the judicial branch actually suspended the legislature.

I'm not even sure you believe this nonsense, but if you do, oy.
 
Carjosse said:
From Reuters:


Maduro has gone full dictator, to no one's surprise. Should sanctions be placed on Maduro and Venezuela?
Click to expand...

I cannot support the decision of the Venezuelan Supreme Court. In the past the right wing in Venezuela was calling for the National Assembly to be dissolved when the PSUV controlled it. This is not a democratic decisions as Chavez points out here:

 
Harshaw said:
Oh, please. :roll: The situations aren't even REMOTELY comparable, not even in the same universe. Not least because all Trump did was run his mouth, and that's all he CAN do, whereas in Venezuela, the judicial branch actually suspended the legislature.

I'm not even sure you believe this nonsense, but if you do, oy.
Click to expand...

Actually they're very similar - just not in the way Cardinal thinks.

In both cases you have a judiciary asserting authority over matters over which it should have no authority.
 
Cardinal said:
A lesson on what happens when you successfully delegitimize one of the major branches of government. In Venezuela it's Congress, here it's the judiciary.
Click to expand...

You compare what happened in Venezuela, in which the Congress was stripped of power, with criticism of the courts, which still have all their power, in the US? How silly.
 
LowDown said:
You compare what happened in Venezuela, in which the Congress was stripped of power, with criticism of the courts, which still have all their power, in the US? How silly.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a lesson of what can happen if you let the delegitimization of a branch play out to its full conclusion.
 
Also this from Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...eme-court-takes-over-national-assembly-duties

As the once-wealthy oil power descends into a chaos of hunger and crime, however, it remained far from clear whether the increasingly despondent population will view the court’s move as a genuine turning point or just another step in the nation’s bottoming out toward hopelessness.
Click to expand...

So it's a straight up autocracy now that is supported by the military and a circle of cronies. One might think that the people would rise up and throw these gangsters out, but as we've learned from Cuba that may not happen. The dictatorial regime might last for a long time.

Venezuela's dictator has even less regard for his people than Castro did. At least Castro tried to keep them fed.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, it's a lesson of what can happen if you let the delegitimization of a branch play out to its full conclusion.
Click to expand...

The idea that criticism of the courts in the US will eventually result in the courts being stripped of power is both silly and delusional.
 
Cardinal said:
A lesson on what happens when you successfully delegitimize one of the major branches of government. In Venezuela it's Congress, here it's the judiciary.
Click to expand...

The judiciary is overstepping it's authority and attempting to delegitimize the Executive Branch.

The courts are acting as if they're above the law.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I cannot support the decision of the Venezuelan Supreme Court. In the past the right wing in Venezuela was calling for the National Assembly to be dissolved when the PSUV controlled it. This is not a democratic decisions as Chavez points out here:

Click to expand...


Socialism at work.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, it's a lesson of what can happen if you let the delegitimization of a branch play out to its full conclusion.
Click to expand...

OK, you're serious. Wow.

Funny; I can't find any alarm on your part when Obama went out of his way, and off-text, in his SOTU address to lambaste the Supreme Court, sitting right in front of him, over Citizens United.
 
LowDown said:
The idea that criticism of the courts in the US will eventually result in the courts being stripped of power is both silly and delusional.
Click to expand...

It will if you reject judicial review altogether, which is actually what the Justice Department's lawyer argued altogether when the first Muslim Ban was before the 9th circuit. Finally, Trump attacked the judges rather than their decisions, which is hardly a surprise since he's already done this on the campaign trail. All of this is an attempt to weaken and delegitimize the judiciary.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
So it's a straight up autocracy now that is supported by the military and a circle of cronies.
Click to expand...
This could also describe Putin's Russia. But that's somehow okay because Donald loves Russia's KGB autocrat and his circle of cronies.
 
apdst said:
The judiciary is overstepping it's authority and attempting to delegitimize the Executive Branch.

The courts are acting as if they're above the law.
Click to expand...

Venezuela's judiciary is establishing itself as a politburo.
 
Cardinal said:
It will if you reject judicial review altogether, which is actually what the Justice Department's lawyer argued altogether when the first Muslim Ban was before the 9th circuit.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. He argued the Plenary Powers Doctrine, that immigration decisions were non-justiciable, and there's plenty of Supreme Court precedent on his side.

Chae Chan Ping v. United States:

That the plenary powers of Congress as regards to immigration are not subject to review by the courts:

To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation, and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character, or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us. The government, possessing the powers which are to be exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth, and its determinations, so far as the subjects affected are concerned, are necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and officers. If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity of the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity, in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must also determine it in the other. In both cases, its determination is conclusive upon the judiciary. If the government of the country of which the foreigners excluded are subjects is dissatisfied with this action, it can make complaint to the executive head of our government, or resort to any other measure which in its judgment its interests or dignity may demand, and there lies its only remedy.
Click to expand...
 
Carjosse said:
From Reuters:


Maduro has gone full dictator, to no one's surprise. Should sanctions be placed on Maduro and Venezuela?
Click to expand...

How is Maduro a dictator when it was the courts that eliminated the Congress? Maduro may indeed be a megalomaniac basketcase, but it's not because of what his Courts decide.
 
reinoe said:
How is Maduro a dictator when it was the courts that eliminated the Congress? Maduro may indeed be a megalomaniac basketcase, but it's not because of what his Courts decide.
Click to expand...

He controls the court.
 
Cardinal said:
A lesson on what happens when you successfully delegitimize one of the major branches of government. In Venezuela it's Congress, here it's the judiciary.
Click to expand...

I agree.

The judges can delegitimize themselves when they enjoy picking winners and losers, and fail to follow the law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

Congress does it when they fail to do their jobs in serving the American people and serve themselves instead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

The executive branch has its own history of wrongdoings and impeachment as well.

This is a crazy time in history when they are all attacking each other.

We are really in trouble if any of them seriously go down.
 
Cardinal said:
It will if you reject judicial review altogether, which is actually what the Justice Department's lawyer argued altogether when the first Muslim Ban was before the 9th circuit.
Click to expand...

The idea of 'balance of power' means that all three branches have power and authority under the Constitution. And that each branch is allowed to exercise that authority and power without the approval of another branch.

What Trump argued, correctly, was that natioal security falls under the authority and power of the executive and thus the judiciary had no authority to rule on the subject.

The contrary argument is non-constitutional: the idea that the executive and legislative can only exercise its authority with the approval of the judiciary. That idea leads to the recent events in Venezuala.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The idea of 'balance of power' means that all three branches have power and authority under the Constitution. And that each branch is allowed to exercise that authority and power without the approval of another branch.

What Trump argued, correctly, was that natioal security falls under the authority and power of the executive and thus the judiciary had no authority to rule on the subject.

The contrary argument is non-constitutional: the idea that the executive and legislative can only exercise its authority with the approval of the judiciary. That idea leads to the recent events in Venezuala.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that the courts don't have judicial review over decisions related to national security?
 
Cardinal said:
Where do you get the idea that the courts don't have judicial review over decisions related to national security?
Click to expand...

Emphasis on the word "get" or on the word "idea"?
I know. I know. That the courts have ruled they dont have the authority implies they do.
It has never been made clear what a judge in Hawaii knows about the security situation in Yemen, and why that knowledge supercedes the knowledge of the Yemen folks.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Emphasis on the word "get" or on the word "idea"?
I know. I know. That the courts have ruled they dont have the authority implies they do.
It has never been made clear what a judge in Hawaii knows about the security situation in Yemen, and why that knowledge supercedes the knowledge of the Yemen folks.
Click to expand...

You ignored my question altogether. Would you like to try again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom