The Court wins another round against the ruling party

Francisco Garfias.

Yesterday the Supreme Court of Justice prevented the ruling party from giving the last straw to transparency and the protection of personal data, via the disappearance of the INAI.

The intention to indefinitely prolong the paralysis suffered by this autonomous constitutional body, which AMLO wants to disappear, arguing that it is very onerous, stopped short.

Eight of the eleven ministers - qualified majority - rejected the project of the minister Loretta Ortiz, unconditional of the Tabasco, who tried to discard the controversy presented by the INAI, due to the lack of appointments of commissioners.

In yesterday's session, the Court ruled that the Senate was "ignorant" by avoiding the appointment of commissioners who should relieve those who finished their term.

It is worth remembering that the Upper House had already appointed two – Rafael Luna and Yadira Alarcón – but the president vetoed them.

The constitutional court also established that the process of electing the commissioners should not be optional, and that political issues are not above the obligation to duly integrate the full INAI.

***

The Law of Laws says that the INAI plenary session is made up of seven directors. A minimum of five is required for the plenary session to be able to meet.

On March 31 of last year, the terms of directors Oscar Guerra and Monterrey Chepov ended. On March 31 of the year, that of Francisco Acuña also ended. Since the departure of the latter, 104 days ago, the plenary session was left without a quorum.

In yesterday's session, Minister Margarita Ríos Farjat and Minister Luis María Aguilar proposed that the plenary session of the Institute meet with only four commissioners, while the remaining three are appointed. It was not voted. The topic was moved to the month of August, after the recess.

The ministers who voted against the right to information and the care of personal data are the usual stalwarts: Loretta Ortiz, Yasmín Esquivel and Arturo Zaldívar.

Those who voted in favor of transparency are Norma Piña, Alberto Pérez Dayán, Luis María Aguilar, Juan Luis González Alcántara, Alfredo Ortiz Mena, Margarita Ríos Farjat, Jorge Pardo and Javier Laynez.

***

In this space we said yesterday that terrorism has already reached us, if we abide by the definition of the Oxford Languages ​​dictionary: "It is the succession of acts to instill fear in society."

The issue came yesterday morning. López Obrador had no choice but to acknowledge that organized crime seeks to sow terror to achieve its purposes, regardless of the cost in blood.

But he did not want to comment on whether the increasingly frequent use of explosive devices by criminal gangs in Mexico makes us a country overwhelmed by terrorism.

He said: "h“We have to see in the strict sense what terrorism means, which is more linked to the political-ideological part, and also to fanaticism.”

And he explained the reasons why he does not admit that there is talk of terrorism in Mexico:

“We must not give in, not open the door for our ultra-conservative neighbors who want to have excuses, pretexts, to violate our sovereignty.

“In other words, you also have to be aware of that, because there are many who seek to get a crack. That is, apart from the vulturesare they hawks”, said.

As a complement, we will cite a military report published yesterday by Reforma that reports a 233 percent increase in the use of explosives by organized crime, between December 2018 and February 2022.

***

The rich corcholatas are laughable. The images and names of Claudia Sheinbaum and Adán Augusto López Hernández are on billboards, fences, t-shirts.

But they evade answering and repeat that they are paid by "colleagues in many places", but without giving names or surnames. The good people paying spectacular? Mmmm.

The great Risco uploaded to twitter yesterday the video of an interview that they did to Sheinbaum on the subject, which ended badly.

– In the case of Tabasco, who ordered them to be installed? the reporter asked

–You have to ask your colleagues to support us, but I already asked them to take down the billboards- he replied.

–Did the president have to intervene for the bottle caps to react?

— For a while we have asked that they be lowered and it is good that the president intervenes and that the president of the party also made a call.

Does this confirm that the president is leading the process?

- No, why?

–Because he gave the instruction.

But you accepted it.

No, we do not abide by it. We acknowledge the opinion and make our decisions. I don't know why so much violence in the interview, she's very violent, Claudia replied, slapping her hands on her legs.

If I were your advisor, I would work on self-control.

END.

(Visited 7 times, 7 visits today)