Latin America
Related: About this forumVenezuela Supreme Court says National Assembly is void
Source: BBC
11 January 2016 Latin America & Caribbean
Venezuela's Supreme Court has ruled all actions of the opposition-held National Assembly are void until three banned members are removed from office.
The decision comes after the assembly swore in the three opposition members, who had been suspended by the court.
The court said the ruling applied to all acts that have been taken or will be taken by the current assembly.
The move is likely to escalate the political turmoil gripping the crisis-hit country.
Four lawmakers were barred by the Supreme Court - three from the opposition and one allied with the government - after the Socialist Party alleged irregularities during last month's vote for a new congress.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35287291
Marksman_91
(2,035 posts)The still Chavist-controlled National Assembly appointed a bunch of new magistrates that have affiliations with Chavismo into the Supreme Court. They always intended to disrespect the will of the people with dirty tactics like this one. What a bunch of delinquent sore losers. Wonder if the rest of LatAm will sit by idly after this parliamentary coup.
FBaggins
(26,729 posts)Marksman_91
(2,035 posts)What's happening now in Venezuela is not unlike what Fujimori did in Peru when he dissolved the congress, only this time, Maduro has no popularity and is doing so through a different government branch. The current Supreme Court was actually assigned at the last minute by the Chavista National Assembly last December as one last desperate attempt to control one of the primary government institutions since they suffered a colossal loss at the National Assembly. Now the question is if those new magistrates (which have been demonstrated to have had close ties with the PSUV leadership) were even put there in a legitimate manner in the first place. It was very spur-of-the-moment the way it was done last month, and likely unconstitutional.