Democracy Wins!

[Shez]

Why should have he refused? and F.Y.I the Supreme Judicial Council gave its verdict in favor of Choudry Iftikhar and that is when Musharaf imposed Emergency, your knowledge in this matter is very weak.

It probably might be political for you but for me it was nothing but a case of fighting for your rights for which the whole nation supported him unlike some.
Your idea of political activity is far from reality.

Lol, I guess your knowledge is weak. You don't know the facts. FYI, CJ was reinstalled by the SJC on July 20 and Musharraf imposed emergency on Nov. 3. He worked for four months as the reinstalled CJ.

 

[Barrett]

@shez

Come out of your ethnic shell and look at the bigger picture.
Your are most welcome to post your highly intellectual views on other forums but over here you need to refute with proof & logic which in your case both are missing and till the time you try to impose your wishes only it will be debunked, that is how we do it here.
Cheers

 

[FireFighter]

Lol. I understand your dirty tactics. Why should I define these terms when anyone can do a basic internet search?

A for the moral standing, it is to stand up for what is right and that is what I am doing unlike the biased and CJ-lovers on this forum who think of him as a god.

I guess this forum is heavily political and tilting towards CJ party and PML N. Heck, it is full of one -- the majority-- ethnic group too that is responsible for Pakistan's downfall.

I had better expectations of this forum but....

So you think this forum is a political faction of the PML N?? LOL

This forum has tons of Indian members, so by insinuating that we're all a party of the PML-N, do you think they vote for PML-N too?

You only answered the Bonus question and got that wrong, too.

I was checking to see if you know how to conduct a simple search on the internet. Apparently you failed the test.

Since you don't wanna answer my questions, tell me one thing. If a rabbit can see a mile away, but you can't do a simple search online:

Who is the smarter fellow?

You or the rabbit?

 

[Barrett]

Lol, I guess your knowledge is weak. You don't know the facts. FYI, CJ was reinstalled by the SJC on July 20 and Musharraf imposed emergency on Nov. 3. He worked for four months as the reinstalled CJ.

Yes you are saying what I am saying, the SJC reinstated him and not reinstalled him and that is what lead to the decision of imposing emergency by Musharaf.

His case was already before a SC panel and he should have followed the legal procedures

you have started contradicting your own statements.

 

[qsaark]

Since you don't wanna answer my questions, tell me one thing. If a rabbit can see a mile away, but you can't do a simple search online:

Who is the smarter fellow?

You or the rabbit?

Me, Shez the great.

 

[Barrett]

Bhains kay aagay been bajanay ka koi faida nahe.

 

[FireFighter]

I have given enough counter arguments and have aptly answered the criticism. No, I don't want my presence felt. I had higher expectations of this forum but found out that it is Punjabi dominated, CJ worshiping and military dictator loving forum. I should better post my comments at Pakistaniat and other reputable forums where there is at least a representation of every ethnic group and sane discussion. Bye guys.

Awww....the poor lad can't face criticism.

Speaking of moral standing, if you understood the term and personally had any, you wouldn't be running away from the forum like a duck just at the thought of being reported. Only the weaklinks do that, i expected better from you mate.

You're just resorting to bashing and name calling and assuming too many things. We're not all punjabis, we're not all PML N party members, heck we're not even close to any of that as a demographic group. Your assumptions are so absurd and out of touch with reality.

You're still welcome to stay. We do honour differences of opinion so long as they're meaningful and do not contravene the spirit of discussions and forum rules.

 

[SSGPA1]

Pls don't look at this issue as Zardari vs. Iftikhar Ch. but look at this issue as Judiciary vs. the Excevutive.

Our constitution has outlined the process:

177. Appointment of Supreme Court Judges.
(1) The Chief Justice of Pakistan shall be appointed by the President, and each of the other Judges shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.

[Chapter 2: The Supreme Court of Pakistan] of [Part VII: The Judicature]

It is however not clear when CJP and President don't agree on an appointment. Now lets look at the words used, shall be appointed by the President

The emphasis here is that executive SHALL appoint and offcourse after consultation with the CJP.

It could have been Judges shall be appointed by the President in concurrence with the advice of the Chief Justice

OR, It could have been Judges shall be appointed by the President as per the recoomendation of the Chief Justice

There is a purpose to use the verbiage used in Article 177 and that is to give exceutive more power than the judiciary.

Please look at Article 206:

[206 Resignation,
(1)] A Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President.

[Chapter 4: General Provisions Relating to The Judicature] of [Part VII: The Judicature]

A judge of the SC is to address his resignation to the President. WHY? Because he is the one who holds the power to appoint the judge and also to accept a resignation. CJP has the power to recommend but not to enforce a recommendation.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST:

[24] [48. President to act on advice, etc.
(1) In the exercise of his functions, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet [25][or the Prime Minister].
[26][Provided that the President may require the Cabinet or as the case may be, the Prime Minister to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.]
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), the President shall act in his discretion in respect of any matter in respect of which he is empowered by the Constitution to do so [26A][and the validity of anything done by the President in his discretion shall not be called in question on any ground whatsoever].
[26B]
(4) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered to the President by the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, a Minister or Minister of State shall not be inquired into in, or by, any court, tribunal or other authority.
(5) Where the President dissolves the National Assembly, he shall, in his discretion,:
(a) appoint a date, not later than [26C] [ninety] days from the date of the dissolution, for the holding of a general election to the Assembly; and
(b) appoint a care-taker Cabinet.
(6) If, at any time, the President, in his discretion, or on the advice of the Prime Minister, considers that it is desirable that any matter of national importance should be referred to a referendum, the President may cause the matter to be referred to a referendum in the form of a question that is capable of being answered either by "Yes" or "No".
(7) An act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) may lay down the procedure for the holding of a referendum and the compiling and consolidation of the result of a referendum.]

[Chapter 1: The President] of [Part III: The Federation of Pakistan]

The above article further clarifies that the President has to act on advise of the Parliament but it doesn't say the CJP or the SCoP.

I want Zardari out but through proper channel and certainly not by the Judiciary.

 

[PakistaniPhysco]

President has the constitutional right to appoint Judges.All CJ can do is just give his recommendations like the last Air Chief and Army Chief gave.CJ is trying to become a judicial dictator.If we go by CJ anology then from now if President appoints his favorite as COAS or CAS then against the recommendation of current Service Chiefs (CAS, COAS, CNS) then Service Chiefs will take suo notice and remove President for good.I don't support Zardari usually but now this is his constitutional right

 

[ajpirzada]

well president has a right to decline any of CJ's recommendation. but then president is supposed to send a written reply (stating the reason for rejection) to CJ so that CJ could review his stance or recommendation. here the right procedure wasnt followed by the president leading to all this crisis.

 

[SSGPA1]

well president has a right to decline any of CJ's recommendation. but then president is supposed to send a written reply (stating the reason for rejection) to CJ so that CJ could review his stance or recommendation. here the right procedure wasnt followed by the president leading to all this crisis.

I think that was done as part of the 'consultation'

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

According to the article 199, any act by any person or any 'body' not in accordance with law or in the public interest can be suspended and even aborted by the Supreme Court. So bad news for you, Parliament is not God almighty and any law can be challenged in the Supreme Court.

In fact, the challenge to the constitutional amendment in California that banned Gay marriage shows us that even constitutional amendments can be challenged as 'unconstitutional'.

How so?

Well the premise behind that argument is that if the constitution guarantees equal rights for all, a 'constitutional amendment', even with one hundred percent support from all involved, is unconstitutional if it infringes upon the rights of some vs others.

 

[ajpirzada]

I think that was done as part of the 'consultation'

no. well how should i explain it

1 CJ sent a proposal which government didnt like
2 Then president was supposed to send written reply citing the reason (it didnt happen)
3 CJ should have reconsidered his recommendation and then send another summary to president (time never came)
.................. and by doin this they should reached some conclusion

gov should have done (2) and waited for (3) and then done something to show public that CJ is not being flexible

 

[All-Green]

Were there 170 million people on road? People are worried about food and shelter, not the antics of CJ and Zardari.

I am sorry to say but only certain elements in Punjab are more interested in this whole CJ party. Sindhis, Mohajirs, Balochs and Pashtuns are no longer interested in this drama.[/QUOTE]

So this has all been a drama?
You try to give it a Punjabi flavor in hope of what?
Leave this typical Punjabi bogey aside and try to understand the gravity of the situation.
The backbone instilled into the SC will only help Pakistan and strengthen democracy because democracy has to be seen as following the law of the land...otherwise such a maverick democratic implementation which is above the law would disintegrate permanently.
Has the judiciary been favouring any party recently by taking correct stances on key issues which need to be resolved for future generations to build upon something good?
What has been declared fit or unfit will stand true even when other parties come to power...so a landmark decision taken by SC will hold as reference for future decisions as well.

It does not matter where the support stems from, if something right is being supported!
I know many people all over the country who passionately support the restoration of judiciary as something most critical for the national reconciliation and integrity.

After a long time our judiciary is doing its job, whether it had political support or not is something we can debate to no end, however the fact remains that judiciary is trying its best to ensure the law of the land is heeded to and decisions are made as per constitution and not to please the government.

A fair Judiciary is pretty much part of a Democratic Pakistan...this is what all the political parties declared when they started their campaign...not that we need their declaration to ascertain this very basic requirement of a land of the pure and free.

There is no such thing as a perfect time for Justice if we keep waiting for democracy to mature. It will be a fruitless wait because democracy cannot mature and take root without having to comply with the very constitution it promises to uphold.
It certainly does not harm democracy if the unconstitutional steps are checked by Supreme Court...afterall is this not what we all have witnessed and read about as the principle failure which gave birth to such an easily derailed setup where anybody could legitimize a constitutional breach?

If the Supreme court is taking a correct stand on constitutional basis then whatever the matter is, it should not be considered trivial.
It is this very strange mentality that has decayed the setup, whereby the constitution is practically made a mockery of...no matter how much respect it is being shown in words.

We need a functional judiciary and not one which compromises to appease the government...if democratic government gets the power to twist the arm of the law then that is why in the past dictators succeeded in manipulating this to their advantage...once you make judiciary a tool in the hands of the government...there is no hope.

What is right as per law does not change with who is saying it...that is the basic thing we need to understand.
It is not about a province or a group of people but about Pakistan and the right of Pakistanis to be all judged by the same set of laws...our founding father Jinnah was one of the most upright and law abiding men...let us not shame his memory.
Do not look at the messenger but rather focus on the message
which in the past has been absolutely in accordance with constitution and if it disfavours one party more than the others then that is the sole responsibility of that party for not following the rules when they have a clear choice infront of them and a people who want to see justice being served.

We have to make the right decisions now, no matter what has happened in the past...this is precisely what needs to change.

Now the matter at hand will take some time to settle and maybe we shall all learn a thing or two here...however the bottomline is that SC has been functioning and not sleeping in past few years.
That is a huge step forward.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The evidence is clearly visible in their reporting and op-ed piece. I guess you don't read Urdu press.

PPP is corrupt and there is no doubt in it but so is PML N. Why no one raise this issue?

I am sorry to say but only certain elements in Punjab are more interested in this whole CJ party. Sindhis, Mohajirs, Balochs and Pashtuns are no longer interested in this drama.

I guess this forum is heavily political and tilting towards CJ party and PML N. Heck, it is full of one -- the majority-- ethnic group too that is responsible for Pakistan's downfall.

I had better expectations of this forum but....

Thanks for your report. You are a Balochistani just like the CJ? He also calls himself that though every one knows his ethnicity.

I have given enough counter arguments and have aptly answered the criticism. No, I don't want my presence felt. I had higher expectations of this forum but found out that it is Punjabi dominated, CJ worshiping and military dictator loving forum. I should better post my comments at Pakistaniat and other reputable forums where there is at least a representation of every ethnic group and sane discussion. Bye guys.

You actually have not provide one single iota of evidence supporting your allegations that the Chief Justice 'trespassed', overstepped his authority, or ordered journalists and others in the media to run an anti-Zardari campaign

You have been asked to do so repeatedly, and the only thing you can offer is that 'the commentary by the media in Pakistan is so overwhelmingly anti-Zardari that it must be at the orders of the Chief Justice'.

With all due respect, that argument is complete nonsense. Zardari is criticized because he is the leader of the governing party, he is the President of Pakistan (and one with a lot of powers vested in him thanks to Musharraf). Those who are in charge and in the limelight will always face the brunt of criticism when things go wrong, and a lot of things have gone wrong under Zardari's watch, for which Zardari alone is to blame.


Remember Bush in his second term after the invasion of Iraq - there were very, very few people in the national US and international media that did not criticize him from here to Kingdom come - his foreign policies were criticized, his domestic policies were criticized, his economic policies were criticized, his environmental policies were criticized.

Your argument would suggest that somehow all this criticism was the doing of the US supreme court! What on earth does the court have to do with this, other than to step in when the policies are unconstitutional?

You, and some other liberal commentators in the media, are so blinded with a desire to have a so called 'liberal democratic party' succeed, that you have thrown away all reason and criticized the major foundation of a successful democratic system - accountability and an independent judiciary to keep the elected representatives in check.

The goal for a society is not to have democracy and a parliament, the goal of a society is to be functional and have basic issues such as justice, economic opportunity, basic needs and equal treatment be addressed.

Democracy is considered one of the better tools to reach the end goal where those issues are addressed, democracy is not the end goal itself, as our puffed up, self-serving politicians like to suggest.

An on the ethnic rants - save those for when Zardari calls a Jiyala rally, no doubt you'll be in the fore front with his other racist leaders who had the temerity to call the decision of the Punjab government to subsidize roti in Punjab for Rs.2 as 'discriminatory to Sindh'.

Your resort to the 'ethnicity' card when your arguments were shot down in flames and you had no comeback is pretty much in sync with the behavior Zardari has displayed through his leaders of trying to use the Sindh card every time he is called out on his lies and unconstitutional antics.

And finally, as a moderator, I will ask you to not abuse this forum through your attempts to use the 'ethnicity card', nor abuse our members, who are from all four provinces of Pakistan, nor cast aspersions on their identities.