Spanish elections and politics III / Pedro Sánchez faces a new term as PM

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Junts is a right-wing party so I'm sure a de facto Abascal government would be perfectly congenial to Puigdemont on many policy levels as well. We need to stop assuming there is anything inherently progressive about these rich-region separatisms.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Junts is a right-wing party so I'm sure a de facto Abascal government would be perfectly congenial to Puigdemont on many policy levels as well. We need to stop assuming there is anything inherently progressive about these rich-region separatisms.

To be clear, since I do sometimes say stuff like this and mean it, in this case I was doing a bit.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm confused. If these judges' mandates expired years ago, why are they in a position to make statements like this?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm confused. If these judges' mandates expired years ago, why are they in a position to make statements like this?

There is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about it and they are well within their right to emit a statement (which was supported by all but one of the progressive judges). The fact that they are acting members does not remove their ability to exercise certain functions.

And it’s not just the General Council of the Judiciary publishing a statement voicing concerns about the agreement. It’s also every single judicial association, including the left-wing ones such as Judges for Democracy and the Progressive Prosecutors’ Union; the Madrid bar association, the tax inspectors union, the work inspectors’ union, the Spanish Diplomats’ Association, and many others.

I think those associations have the right to state concern over the PSOE-Junts agreement,  even though the mention to the "judicialization of politics" does not necessarily imply delegitimizing the judiciary. Moreover, most of the criticism over Rajoy's policies to tackle the Catalan conflict were focused on the government's lack of political initiarive and the judicialization of the conflict (in other words, Rajoy did nothing to tackle the constitutional crisis and left the problem to the judges).  A different question,  in my opinion, is that confusing mention to "lawfare" (Junts leaders claim they are victims of a lawfare campaign).  In any case, the relevant thing are the contents of the future amnesty law.

In what concerns the General Council of the Judiciary,  a distinction should be made between what's unlawful and what's immoral. It is absolutely scandalous the PP's deliberate obstruction to the renewal of that organism, which probably represents a more serious "break of democracy" than the projected amnesty on Catalan separatists.  Unlike amnesty, I think this situation is unparalelled in Western Europe. Besides, the acting members of the Council lack the dignity required to resign, as well as the conservative members act like PP soldiers. Finally, the statement issued by the Council was over amnesty and not about the deal between PSOE and Junts. In other words, the morally delegitimized members with expired mandates issued a statement on a law that is not yet submitted to Congress

Yes, this is what I was asking about. I understand that this body has the right and the ability to make statements like this; I don't understand why expired mandates apparently don't, you know, actually expire for this office. Five years is an awfully long time for a whole group of people to hold caretaker positions.