Path-Finder
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 24,393
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Last edited:
PM Imran Khan vs Opposition No Confidence Vote- Updates and Discussion
- Thread starter FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
- Start date
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
He took no prisoners there at the end!
Path-Finder
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 24,393
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
you do realise that @FOOLS_NIGHTMARE cares for ONLY one thing! the growth of lipids on his meean ji.
afterall a lifetime spent in service of meean ji.
......................................................
@Death Adder why not give us your sermon too!
Flight of falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 22, 2019
- Messages
- 3,475
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
All bloody Patwaris should be declared traitors and at least their leaders should have their heads chopped off …
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
There as been alot of commentary on this topic, and I would just like to present the possibilities as I see them:
PPP argues that the status quo be maintained, assemblies restored, and voting on the NCM take place.
PTI contends that:
The court cannot hear cases regarding this issue due to Article 69. There is some merit to this argument, as the SC returned a petition one day ago on the exact same grounds. But, there is a debate even within the lawyers whether this article applies in totality or not. Some contend this is a conditional clause. It only applies to procedural faults, not constitutional.
So the first order is that the court has to decide whether it can do something in this case or not.
So, let's say the court decides that it will interfere in this matter and Article 69 does not apply in this case. Then would the assemblies be restored? No. Right now the court has only decided to look at the merits of the Speaker's decision, hasn't decided on the decision itself.
Now comes the speakers judgement, which is a detailed judgement. There are merits and dismerits to it. To decide upon that, the court would need to see bone of contention, the famed letter. And that is where the water muddies. If that letter comes to the SC, then the MoD, MoFA, and other stakeholders would be asked to give their input, and the court would in effect have to decide whether the political parties or a select few of their leaders were indeed part of a foreign conspiracy or plan? This is a HUGE question, and a HUGE responsibility on the shoulders of the court. The letter would come out in public, be shared with the opposition lawyers, and so on.
If it agrees with the speaker on the ruling, then it effectively does say that there was a foreign element to the whole move, and this would be far far damaging to the opposition. The SC basically has said you are colluding with a foreign power.
Does the SC want to take that burden? I believe not.
Furthermore, how can it be that you can break the law in one case but that is alright, but in another it becomes totally wrong? Banday chori kar lo, paisay kharcho, entice karo, that's alright, but the other thing is not?
You cannot bring a knife to a karate fight, but then complain when the other guy brings out a gun. Once you brought out a knife, you've left the door open for all sorts of thuggery.
IMO, the court should also immediately decide the status of the presidential reference regarding the turncoats. The opposition only managed to woo MQM and other parties after it showed them the presence of the PTI MNA's in it's ranks. Had the SC decided on that issue before, we wouldn't be here.
In a nutshell, the SC would not want to involve itself in this political mess, and give out a certificate on foreign interference, that is why it will take the easy way out as always and take support of Article 69.
PPP argues that the status quo be maintained, assemblies restored, and voting on the NCM take place.
PTI contends that:
The court cannot hear cases regarding this issue due to Article 69. There is some merit to this argument, as the SC returned a petition one day ago on the exact same grounds. But, there is a debate even within the lawyers whether this article applies in totality or not. Some contend this is a conditional clause. It only applies to procedural faults, not constitutional.
So the first order is that the court has to decide whether it can do something in this case or not.
So, let's say the court decides that it will interfere in this matter and Article 69 does not apply in this case. Then would the assemblies be restored? No. Right now the court has only decided to look at the merits of the Speaker's decision, hasn't decided on the decision itself.
Now comes the speakers judgement, which is a detailed judgement. There are merits and dismerits to it. To decide upon that, the court would need to see bone of contention, the famed letter. And that is where the water muddies. If that letter comes to the SC, then the MoD, MoFA, and other stakeholders would be asked to give their input, and the court would in effect have to decide whether the political parties or a select few of their leaders were indeed part of a foreign conspiracy or plan? This is a HUGE question, and a HUGE responsibility on the shoulders of the court. The letter would come out in public, be shared with the opposition lawyers, and so on.
If it agrees with the speaker on the ruling, then it effectively does say that there was a foreign element to the whole move, and this would be far far damaging to the opposition. The SC basically has said you are colluding with a foreign power.
Does the SC want to take that burden? I believe not.
Furthermore, how can it be that you can break the law in one case but that is alright, but in another it becomes totally wrong? Banday chori kar lo, paisay kharcho, entice karo, that's alright, but the other thing is not?
You cannot bring a knife to a karate fight, but then complain when the other guy brings out a gun. Once you brought out a knife, you've left the door open for all sorts of thuggery.
IMO, the court should also immediately decide the status of the presidential reference regarding the turncoats. The opposition only managed to woo MQM and other parties after it showed them the presence of the PTI MNA's in it's ranks. Had the SC decided on that issue before, we wouldn't be here.
In a nutshell, the SC would not want to involve itself in this political mess, and give out a certificate on foreign interference, that is why it will take the easy way out as always and take support of Article 69.
Clutch
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 17,023
- Reaction score
- -3
Fool is in his name... Keep the bar really low for this guy...
hussain0216
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 21,096
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Nawaz is hated, the opposition have truly made a mistake and the level of anger against them is unprecedented
Norwegian
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 19,001
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
You mean the convicted criminal absconding in London?
Steppe Wolff
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2021
- Messages
- 506
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
That’s what you get by the common people when you spend decades looting the country and filling your personal coffers.
ziaulislam
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 23,621
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Ayan ali should head SBP of pakistan
While maryum nawaz need to lead PTV awaiting for late night spicey material from here
Mualana shahab will do good as president with his private guard
Zardari should be governor punjab
And shirtless guy/molestor should be made governor sindh
For CM punjab we need a better person may be the necklace thief is good
And power ministery difentively raja rental since last fine was abolished we need a bigger fine
Qazi essa hopefully we will breal record on reko dig fine
Abdulaziz Al-Karimi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2022
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
This is obviously their stance because the opposition really destroyed themselves behind repair if your image is unrepairable against the people you take oath serving then there is nothing left for you.
The Military and ethablishment will be forced to go after them. There is nothing the SC can do here because itself could be cleaned out here as the case of the article 5 breach is quite serious
The Military and ethablishment will be forced to go after them. There is nothing the SC can do here because itself could be cleaned out here as the case of the article 5 breach is quite serious
Similar threads
