President Javier Milei appointed two judges to the Supreme Court by decree, bypassing Congress, prompting criticism for potential abuse of power. The appointments were made to address vacancies but raised concerns about the nominees’ qualifications and independence. Legal experts caution that using decrees in this manner undermines constitutional procedures and threatens democracy in Argentina.
President Javier Milei of Argentina has controversially chosen to appoint two judges to the Supreme Court by decree, circumventing Congress during its summer recess. This decision, characterized by many as an abuse of executive power, arose due to the strategic necessity of filling two vacancies on the court, which requires a minimum of four judges to function effectively. The Milei administration justified these actions by asserting it was within his constitutional rights.
Previously, the nominations of federal judge Ariel Lijo and lawyer Manuel García-Mansilla were not confirmed by the Senate, where Milei’s coalition holds a minority. The Senate had not explicitly rejected the candidates but opted for silence during the process. In a recent statement, Milei’s office asserted the suitability of the nominees despite the lack of Senate approval.
The nomination of Lijo has faced significant scrutiny due to his history of legal controversies, including accusations of conspiracy and money laundering, raising serious concerns regarding his qualifications. This has attracted criticism from organizations like Human Rights Watch, which denounced Milei’s actions as a detrimental blow to judicial independence. “President Milei cannot pretend to evade institutional mechanisms simply because he has not obtained the necessary Senate votes to appoint his candidates,” expressed Juanita Goebertus, the Americas director at Human Rights Watch.
Milei’s supporters were surprised by his choice of a candidate from Argentina’s established political elite, given his platform that criticized corruption. Since ascending to power in 2023, he has positioned himself as a radical reformer in response to public dissatisfaction with previous administrations. The appointments, set to expire at the end of the current congressional session on November 30, are temporary, thus requiring Senate confirmation for the judges to remain.
Critics are alarmed by what they perceive as a strategic effort to consolidate power by appointing loyalists to the highest court. Constitutional experts emphasize that using decrees to bypass regular appointment processes undermines the constitutional framework. “The decrees are for restrictive use and cannot be used as a mere alternative to the regular procedures provided for by the constitution,” stated constitutional lawyer Andrés Gil Domínguez, warning that misuse of such techniques jeopardizes democratic principles.
President Milei’s appointments of judges to the Supreme Court via decree have raised significant constitutional concerns. Critics underscore the importance of maintaining judicial independence and the proper use of constitutional powers. This situation illustrates the tensions between executive authority and legislative processes, emphasizing the need for accountability in judicial appointments to uphold democratic principles.
Original Source: www.firstpost.com
