QUESTIONS asked by, gen KIYANI & CJ choudhry! who is right?

[batmannow]

That is what you are saying - but look at the reaction from the people. The biggest decision making this court has done has been on the NRO/Gillani issue and I don't see the people finding any fault with the Supreme Court.

Usually naysayers are also people in disbelief who think just because too much is happening it must be wrong. The courts MUST listen to all competent petitions. The courts have thrown out a whole lot of petitions as non-maintainable as I'm following it. Its not always actively seeking out cases. Its being having to prioritize them. But you have to admit, the people of Pakistan presenting their cases to the Supreme Court have various beefs with the institutions they are petitioning against. Whether these beefs are legitimate or not is the job of the Supreme Court to decide.

this SC & CJ are just pice of crap, who bent like a butter to zardari, just because FAISAL ABIDI want to show the arsalans moral & financial cruoption to the media?

 

[VCheng]

That is what you are saying - but look at the reaction from the people. The biggest decision making this court has done has been on the NRO/Gillani issue and I don't see the people finding any fault with the Supreme Court.

Interpreting the law in the SC is NOT a popularity contest.

Usually naysayers are also people in disbelief who think just because too much is happening it must be wrong. The courts MUST listen to all competent petitions. The courts have thrown out a whole lot of petitions as non-maintainable as I'm following it. Its not always actively seeking out cases. Its being having to prioritize them. But you have to admit, the people of Pakistan presenting their cases to the Supreme Court have various beefs with the institutions they are petitioning against. Whether these beefs are legitimate or not is the job of the Supreme Court to decide.

Incorrect. The job of the SC is not determine if said beefs are legitimate or not. It is whether there are any grounds for determining that laws have been established, applied and interpreted correctly or incorrectly, related to the beefs. Big difference.

 

[Awesome]

this SC & CJ are just pice of crap, who bent like a butter to zardari, just because FAISAL ABIDI want to show the arsalans moral & financial cruoption to the media?

Actually inspite of it, he got Raja Pervez Ashraf to agree to write the letter, didn't he? How did he bend to Zardari?

 

[batmannow]

Actually inspite of it, he got Raja Pervez Ashraf to agree to write the letter, didn't he? How did he bend to Zardari?

& what they had written in that letter?
details of CJs loan from house building corporation , without any land to show?
for the sake of dam valimaa?
or how CJ taught young arsalan to enjoy & spend 10,000 ERUs in a casino A night!
thts all khana puri, deal was done!
funny so funny!
INSAAF ka ANDHAA BHAGWAAN

DAM faisal abidi, hve the dam receipts of all the wrong doings of arsalan!

 

[Awesome]

Interpreting the law in the SC is NOT a popularity contest.

While it may not be, but the question is arisen when the alternatives like abrogation of the constitution are sought. Previous COASs got away with it as it was always the popular decision of the time - to oppose the CJ would require abrogation of the constitution or a 2/3 majority vote remaining within the confines of the constitution.

Since this country is by the people, we are a democracy since the people want it to be, we are the political sovereigns, we are the ultimate arbitrators of everything in this country - the only ones above the Supreme Court. Of course our decision making does not have a process to it thats why we allow an elected government to govern and the judicial branch the arbitrate and a legislative one to convert what we want into law.

Back when the letter issue was fresh in Jan 2011, the option 6 the court gave was - Go back to the political sovereign. It hinted what the government needs to do is to ask the people, if the people say no letter is needed then that's final, no letter would be needed. The court accepts this ultimate finality of the political system - which is proper.

I don't have to explain to you why a coup is improper.

The court has done everything by the book.

Incorrect. The job of the SC is not determine if said beefs are legitimate or not. It is whether there are any grounds for determining that laws have been established, applied and interpreted correctly or incorrectly, related to the beefs. Big difference.

All court cases have at least 2 steps to them. 1) Whether or not there is a case to be held based on this petition. This is usually a 1 or 2 session hearing, mini-trial of sorts. 2) It has the actual trial.

At any given time it may interpret established laws application the case. There may be times where definitions don't exist. The defence and prosecutions would bring in experts to determine what the definition should be but the final decision to accept over the other would be of the Supreme Courts.

This Supreme Court is as good as it is, because at no given instance have the people ever felt it has made a wrong decision and accepted those who didn't make the case.

 

[batmannow]

While it may not be, but the question is arisen when the alternatives like abrogation of the constitution are sought. Previous COASs got away with it as it was always the popular decision of the time - to oppose the CJ would require abrogation of the constitution or a 2/3 majority vote remaining within the confines of the constitution.

Since this country is by the people, we are a democracy since the people want it to be, we are the political sovereigns, we are the ultimate arbitrators of everything in this country - the only ones above the Supreme Court. Of course our decision making does not have a process to it thats why we allow an elected government to govern and the judicial branch the arbitrate and a legislative one to convert what we want into law.

Back when the letter issue was fresh in Jan 2011, the option 6 the court gave was - Go back to the political sovereign. It hinted what the government needs to do is to ask the people, if the people say no letter is needed then that's final, no letter would be needed. The court accepts this ultimate finality of the political system - which is proper.

I don't have to explain to you why a coup is improper.

The court has done everything by the book.





All court cases have at least 2 steps to them. 1) Whether or not there is a case to be held based on this petition. This is usually a 1 or 2 session hearing, mini-trial of sorts. 2) It has the actual trial.

At any given time it may interpret established laws application the case. There may be times where definitions don't exist. The defence and prosecutions would bring in experts to determine what the definition should be but the final decision to accept over the other would be of the Supreme Courts.

This Supreme Court is as good as it is, because at no given instance have the people ever felt it has made a wrong decision and accepted those who didn't make the case.

SC has become a political player who wants to show its power , it needs to be corrected, if not thn should be terminated!
& its comming!

 

[Awesome]

& what they had written in that letter?
details of CJs loan from house building corporation , without any land to show?
for the sake of dam valimaa?
or how CJ taught young arsalan to enjoy & spend 10,000 ERUs in a casino A night!
thts all khana puri, deal was done!
funny so funny!
INSAAF ka ANDHAA BHAGWAAN

DAM faisal abidi, hve the dam receipts of all the wrong doings of arsalan!

Aap ke kehne se toh nahi hojati na. I'm not arguing anything about Arsalan. About Arsalan I just know one thing, no one opened a case against Arsalan, but it was CJ Iftikhar Choudhary who took suo motu action to open that case himself and that matter is sub-judice. If the CJ was influencing the court in his son's favor he wouldn't need a deal.

The courts will decide the matter, not your or me. If you think he made a deal with Zardari, prove it.

SC has become a political player who wants to show its power , it needs to be corrected, if not thn should be terminated!
& its comming!

Sir, you can petition for such a constitutional amendment. By any other way - its treason.

 

[VCheng]

..........
Since this country is by the people, we are a democracy since the people want it to be, we are the political sovereigns, we are the ultimate arbitrators of everything in this country - the only ones above the Supreme Court. Of course our decision making does not have a process to it thats why we allow an elected government to govern and the judicial branch the arbitrate and a legislative one to convert what we want into law.........

By definition, that means the Parliament is above the SC since it is chosen by the people.

The court has done everything by the book.

Yes, but selectively.

This Supreme Court is as good as it is, because at no given instance have the people ever felt it has made a wrong decision and accepted those who didn't make the case.

What the people feel or not is immaterial. Justice is supposed to be blind, and here it is not. It is picking and choosing sides with one eye open (no pun intended).

 

[Awesome]

By definition, that means the Parliament is above the SC since it is chosen by the people.

It is chosen to legislate. If the parliament makes a constitutional amendment then it is above for that moment. If its a matter of the existing constitution then the SC is above. Its a check and balance system, not a hierarchical system.

Yes, but selectively.

Prioritization and it has too much to do. One can never say there are a handful of things to do in Pakistan. But sorting out the civilian and military leadership has to top the list of anyone who is presented with problematic cases of Pakistan.

What the people feel or not is immaterial. Justice is supposed to be blind, and here it is not. It is picking and choosing sides with one eye open (no pun intended).

It is blind - Take the terrorism example. People blindly say it has let go of terrorists, but it has made hundreds of terrorism related convictions (talking about courts in general not just the supreme court) but it has let go of many too. It is blind where the LEAs made their case they got convictions where they didn't, the suspects walked.

While Supreme Court may not keep an eye on public opinion, the public opinion keeps an eye on the Supreme Court. If it was anything but blind, there would have been a backlash.

 

[VCheng]

It is chosen to legislate. If the parliament makes a constitutional amendment then it is above for that moment. If its a matter of the existing constitution then the SC is above. Its a check and balance system, not a hierarchical system.

I agree with that this is how it should be.

Prioritization and it has too much to do. One can never say there are a handful of things to do in Pakistan. But sorting out the civilian and military leadership has to top the list of anyone who is presented with problematic cases of Pakistan.

"Prioritization" done according to subjective criteria is attempted justification for selected application of the law. My point stands, Sir.

It is blind - Take the terrorism example. People blindly say it has let go of terrorists, but it has made hundreds of terrorism related convictions (talking about courts in general not just the supreme court) but it has let go of many too. It is blind where the LEAs made their case they got convictions where they didn't, the suspects walked.

While Supreme Court may not keep an eye on public opinion, the public opinion keeps an eye on the Supreme Court. If it was anything but blind, there would have been a backlash.

Ah yes, but you should note that the SC should NOT pay attention to the fear of a backlash. Otherwise, judicial activism is led astray by populism, and that never ends well.

 

[batmannow]

Aap ke kehne se toh nahi hojati na. I'm not arguing anything about Arsalan. About Arsalan I just know one thing, no one opened a case against Arsalan, but it was CJ Iftikhar Choudhary who took suo motu action to open that case himself and that matter is sub-judice. If the CJ was influencing the court in his son's favor he wouldn't need a deal.

The courts will decide the matter, not your or me. If you think he made a deal with Zardari, prove it.



Sir, you can petition for such a constitutional amendment. By any other way - its treason.

it has already decided by abidi & zardari!
well, i dont want to spend my money & my time in front of house of bogus edcucated but cruopt traitors judgs, who wants to defame my army!
lets play the power game , its a CJ,s wish right!

 

[Sugarcane]

Actually inspite of it, he got Raja Pervez Ashraf to agree to write the letter, didn't he? How did he bend to Zardari?

PPP's term is going to end or Chaudhary abhi tak aik NRO ke dum say latka howa hai - He only take notices on the issues where he can get more popularity. Not a single case has been completed where criminals are punished. IMO, he should be thrown out of Supreme Court because he is doing politics sitting on that seat and is dropping the institution to level where the institution will lose it's respect - which is worst thing that can happen to a country where people don't respect their courts as compare to Army losing it's respect. Currently he is giving booster injections to maintain status of court by reducing prices of smasoas and pakoras but for how long it will last? People needs just on-time justice, don't want to play cat & mouse with the cases. Remember that JUSTICE DELAYED = JUSTICE DENIED

 

[Awesome]

"Prioritization" done according to subjective criteria is attempted justification for selected application of the law. My point stands, Sir.

Actually this needs to be explored too - what petitions has the court ignored? For example people kept complaining that the court doesn't move against the Sharifs - if this case against the former COAS/ISI is taken to its judicial end, one of the players who would find themselves in hot water would be the Sharifs.

Ah yes, but you should note that the SC should NOT pay attention to the fear of a backlash. Otherwise, judicial activism is led astray by populism, and that never ends well.

Of course it should not - but I'm saying since there hasn't been one - most people agree with the SC's decisions, hence a coup - should be considered the most foolish things by any misguided soul who thinks he can wave into Constitution avenue in a popular coup.

PPP's term is going to end or Chaudhary abhi tak aik NRO ke dum say latka howa hai - He only take notices on the issues where he can get more popularity. Not a single case has been completed where criminals are punished. IMO, he should be thrown out of Supreme Court because he is doing politics sitting on that seat and is dropping the institution to level where the institution will lose it's respect - which is worst thing that can happen to a country where people don't respect their courts as compare to Army losing it's respect. Currently he is giving booster injections to maintain status of court by reducing prices of smasoas and pakoras but for how long it will last? People needs just on-time justice, don't want to play cat & mouse with the cases. Remember that JUSTICE DELAYED = JUSTICE DENIED

The Supreme Court has done two major things - gone against violations of the law by the government and violations of the law by some LEAs/military forces. Some people out of these institutions broke the law with impunity, including its top most leaders.

 

[VCheng]

Actually this needs to be explored too - what petitions has the court ignored? For example people kept complaining that the court doesn't move against the Sharifs - if this case against the former COAS/ISI is taken to its judicial end, one of the players who would find themselves in hot water would be the Sharifs.

I hope that the Sharifs and the Chaudharys and the Makhdooms and the Generals, all get their day before the court, one and ALL, without ANY exceptions.

Of course it should not - but I'm saying since there hasn't been one - most people agree with the SC's decisions, hence a coup - should be considered the most foolish things by any misguided soul who thinks he can wave into Constitution avenue in a popular coup.

Ah, I see your point now.

 

[Awesome]

it has already decided by abidi & zardari!
well, i dont want to spend my money & my time in front of house of bogus edcucated but cruopt traitors judgs, who wants to defame my army!
lets play the power game , its a CJ,s wish right!

Who is defaming the army? In fact you were the one who said they would resort to terrorism to take out the CJ . Making false accusations against the army is a jailable offence, Javed Hashmi was sentenced to jail when he couldn't produce the source of his letter.

The argument here is about violations of the law by certain individuals. If anything the Army's name would be cleaned if it is cleansed by the suspected law breakers or it is determined the suspects are innocent.

I hope that the Sharifs and the Chaudharys and the Makhdooms and the Generals, all get their day before the court, one and ALL, without ANY exceptions.



Ah, I see your point now.

You missed Zardari - well he has constitutional immunity so I forgive you.