Martín Soria’s clarification on his support for the 2019 Court ruling and the current criticism

The failure of the Supreme Court who suspended the elections in san juan and tucumán causing the anger of the entire official arc, with a harsh criticism of the Minister of Justice martin soria, who said “a clear alteration of democratic coexistence”. However, on social networks they reproached him for not thinking the same when in 2019 the Supreme Court invalidated the candidacy of Alberto Weretilnek to be governor of Black river.

However, the minister of the cabinet of Alberto Fernández rejected that it is a contradiction. And he did it through a Twitter thread with a detailed detail of the plot points for which he now opposed the precautionary measures that they objected to the re-election processes in the two provinces.

Soria’s reaction after the Court ruling.

“Finally, Respect for the #Constitution (sic) prevailed and that is good news for all Rionegrins. The current governor could not be a candidate again and the Justice made it known. That violating the Constitution is prevented, that the law is enforced, THAT is the good news”, was the tweet that a user of the archive rescued, to reproach him for a contradiction.

After the suspension of the elections, what will happen to the elections in Tucumán and San Juan

Without ignoring him, the official responded. “Those who compare these facts are grossly missing the truth,” accuse.

Soria’s explanation

As a first point, the official maintained that in the 2019 case “the Supreme Court took 14 days to rule and, without suspending the election, resolved two weeks before the date of the election that the candidate who intended to present to a third consecutive term, I couldn’t do it”, alluding to Weretilneck.

Secondly, the official in charge of the Ministry of Justice of the Nation commented that one of the articles of the Constitution of Río Negro”Clean vetoed that Weretilneck could run again in the elections“Different, according to him, from what happened with San Juan and Tucumán, where there is no such prohibition. With that, he justified his criticism of the decision that was made public on Tuesday.

In addition, he began to analyze the tool chosen by the Court to resolve the matter.

Twitter Martin Soria
Soria and its celebration of 2019.

“In 2019, the Court’s ruling was not precautionary (preventive) but was a decision on the merits of the matter that put a definitive point on the issue, without room for political speculation.” This while now the courtiers signed a precautionary measure that does not resolve the substance of the issue, that is, if the contested candidates can stand for election.

“They do not tolerate limits being set”: Macri supported the Court’s ruling and criticized the government’s “undemocratic attitude”

It is worth remembering that in 2019, Soria objected to the candidacy of Weretilnek, who had been governor from 2012 to 2019 and intended to run again. The Supreme Court agreed with him and possibly to the Electoral Tribunal of the Province to invalidate a new candidacy of the current national senator.

Criticism of Rosenkrantz

After clarifying his position, the official said a contradiction of the minister of the court Carlos Rosenkranz.

remembered that the courtier refused to intervene in the election of Río Negro when deciding on the cause of 2019, while now, in the cases of San Juan and Tucumán, intervene. The jurisdiction of the Highest Court on the issue is one of the main points of conflict that opened the new ruling.

The Association of Magistrates pointed to Alberto Fernández for the “constant attack on the Judiciary”

“What is striking is the change in criteria of Rosenkrantz, who in 2019 rejected the Court to intervene in the election of Río Negro considering that it had no jurisdiction over the provincial electoral processand now he voted to suspend the elections in San Juan and Tucumán,” wrote Soria.

At that time, Rosenkrantz justified his position by making room for a precedent that indicated that the Court could not intervene in those cases where an election of provincial authorities is at stake “if the decisions that cause harm to the plaintiff can be justified by some reading or interpretation of the norms established in the Provincial Constitution“.

AS/FL

You may also like