Pumpido accuses his colleagues of the Constitutional Court of disarming the State to attend to Vox’s claims

The progressive magistrate of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, assures that the sentence that declares confinement illegal “does not solve, but rather creates a serious political problem, by disarming the State against pandemics, depriving it of the instrument that the law expressly determines to do. in the face of health crises, the state of alarm “. This is reflected in the draft of the private vote that this magistrate has already distributed among his fellow court members and to which elDiario.es has had access.

The Constitutional Court says in its ruling that the pandemic allowed "an extreme limitation" of rights with the state of exception

The ruling – The Constitutional Court says in its ruling that the pandemic allowed “an extreme limitation” of rights with the state of exception

Know more

According to Pumpido, the resolution does not respond to true legal criteria, “because it uses a mere argumentative shortcut (qualify as suspension an intense restriction of a fundamental right with a very poor argument) to estimate the unconstitutionality of a health measure requested by a political party – in reference to Vox- which previously had expressly supported in the debate and parliamentary vote on the extension ”

Throughout 14 pages, Pumpido charges against the decision that gives the reason to Vox and whose main promoter was the magistrate Pedro González Trevijano. To this he dedicates technical criticisms such as the one that questions his ability to discern constitutional categories or the one that affirms that the presentation that ended up winning by a single vote of difference is “more typical of a layman than of the maximum interpreter of the Constitution” and that. leads to arbitrariness in its application “.

At this point, the magistrate points out that the exceptions to confinement were numerous, according to the judgment itself, in the case of freedom of enterprise or scarce in the case of free movement. Thus, the construction of the Judgment from which he disagrees does not give any certainty, since it is based on “the * sorites paradox attributed to Eubulides * of Miletus”, according to Conde-Pumido, who demonstrated the difficulty of determining how many grains of sand they do a lot.

“It only seems to be instrumental in allowing this Court to have a greater discretion to consider that some of the measures adopted at the time, although they could be correct to face the pandemic, were unconstitutional due to the fact that the number of exceptions did not it was enough to avoid classifying the restriction as a suspension that was adopted without having used the correct tool, “he laments in his private vote.


Source link