Luisa Estella Morales is truly a piece of cake. She spews BS like there is no end to it. After the Supreme Court accepted the case to ban leading opposition candidate Herique Capriles on trumped up corruption charges, she swiftly turned around and discarded the case because the accused misrepresented himself when presenting the case as holding a certain position in Chavez’ PSUV case.
Talk about a silly technicality with no legal basis.
But I guess Luisa Estella, who was removed from the bench, not once, but twice, which apparently qualified her to be Chief Justice of the Venezuelan Supreme Court under Chavez, thinks she is on a roll in trying to fool us, and she is trying it once more. Maybe she is right and we are indeed idiots, after all look at what job she holds. Here is the story:
Chavez’ Government approved a Bill imposing a salary cap on public servants. Supreme Court Justices who made at least US$ 7,000 a month, something like 20 times a year, were among those most affected by the decision as their salary would have to roll back to Bs. 12,000. But in their infinite creativity, the Court implemented a food card of Bs. 10,000 for all Justices, around seven times the minimum salary, to complement the “capped” salary of Bs. 12,000.
Except it leaked to the press, not via a leak, or as she calls it, “It was taken to the press in an inaccurate fashion”, but the simple fact that one of the members of the Court (see two posts ago), Blanca Marmol de Leon, rejected the food tickets, because it was undignified and illegal. Marmol de Leon said that this was a “fraud of the law” and it was a way to look for “alternate routes”. Marmol de Leon also said that at least four Justices had rejected the food tickets. I hope we learn who, those guys should stay in the Court, whenever the not so revolutionary “Justices” are swept out of the Court.
And indeed, Luisa Estella confirms, Marmol de Leon’s “alternate route” theory, when she says: “The Court will undertake an extensive review, from a legal point of view”.
Jeez, I thought that was what they did all the time; look at things exhaustively from a legal (and supreme) point of view.
But since she is ready to assume we are stupid, she said: “It is not a bonus, it is not a food ticket, it is for our expense account”
I guess someone has to pay for lunch when they go meet with the party hacks who tell them how to rule and sentence in their cases.
And in closing, she tells that she hopes the “people” will not have an erroneous vision and distorted view of the Justices.
No, we don’t, but we certainly seem that stupid!