Supreme court Bench broken

[N.Siddiqui]

SC waited for few days for taking this case of extension of election date to 8th Oct. by ECP, after the petition was filed by PTI's Asad Umar and there were three petitions on it, this wasn't a Suo Moto, so this new decree? by the three judges including faez Isa doesn't holds any weight on this case.

This is about abiding by the constitution which is above everything else, so it need to be saved by judiciary and people rallying behind them, going above and beyond.

GHQ have no qualms if the constitution is breached as earlier, ideal situation for the law breakers.

 

[Rank]

Who has authority to make laws??

Parliament can only amend articles in which they can add/remove or amend existing provisions bhai sahab aur who can do that? Those who have 2/3 … kia inke paas hey? Secondly, parliament can only do “Federal legislation” not “Supreme court laws”.

Ye poranay disqualify logoon ki hearing start hogaye tu line lag kayege doosra 4 article ka achaar dalna hay disqualification ka karna kia hay phir jab banda baad may wapis apni khatam karwa kar ajaye pora ayeen change karna parayga for that u need 2/3 saaf nazar araha hy doo numberi even Ansar Abbasi of geo said yesterday ye jo provision hey ye law for sharif hey bazahir go and watch his interview

 

[muhammadhafeezmalik]

Parliament can only amend articles in which they can add/remove or amend existing provisions bhai sahab aur who can do that? Those who have 2/3 … kia inke paas hey? Secondly, parliament can only do “Federal legislation” not “Supreme court laws”

To amend constitution we need 2/3 majority , but to make laws we need only 1/2 of existing members.

 

[Rank]

To amend constitution we need 2/3 majority , but to make laws we need only 1/2 of existing members.

Brother listen this from 3:30 onwards

 

[Sugarcane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1641372150090063872

 

[muhammadhafeezmalik]

Parliament can only amend articles in which they can add/remove or amend existing provisions bhai sahab aur who can do that? Those who have 2/3 … kia inke paas hey? Secondly, parliament can only do “Federal legislation” not “Supreme court laws”.

Ye poranay disqualify logoon ki hearing start hogaye tu line lag kayege doosra 4 article ka achaar dalna hay disqualification ka karna kia hay phir jab banda baad may wapis apni khatam karwa kar ajaye pora ayeen change karna parayga for that u need 2/3 saaf nazar araha hy doo numberi even Ansar Abbasi of geo said yesterday ye jo provision hey ye law for sharif hey bazahir go and watch his interview

What are Supreme Court Laws, there are rules of SC, which are bound to align with the laws passed by the Parliament. No one is clipping the powers of SC, Parliament added the powers of SC judges.

 

[Olympus81]

In a way its good.

Everyone stands naked. Politicians, Judiciary, Military Inc.

 

[muhammadhafeezmalik]

Brother listen this from 3:30 onwards

No one is changing article184, where as PTI government changed the constitution by ordinances several times. Lets see what would the Senate decide??

 

[N.Siddiqui]

In a way its good.

Everyone stands naked. Politicians, Judiciary, Military Inc.

Stereotyping is not that required, there are good, non pliable, competent judges in SC, all the HC's and lower courts, magistrates too and lawyers.

So need to avoid putting all the judiciary in the same bracket.

To amend constitution we need 2/3 majority , but to make laws we need only 1/2 of existing members.

'Sine quo non' to upheld the constitution regarding the 90 days stipulated time for the elections to be held, which is holding the country together, as said by Fawad Chaudhry.

 

[villageidiot]

Stereotyping is not that required, there are good, non pliable, competent judges in SC, all the HC's and lower courts, magistrates too and lawyers.

So need to avoid putting all the judiciary in the same bracket.

Let me guess, Khamosh mujahids in SC and Bar associations?

 

[Rank]

No one is changing article184, where as PTI government changed the constitution by ordinances several times. Lets see what would the Senate decide??

IMO, they can't do that.. amendment of 184/3 is a serious intervention in SC's matter esp the provision has clear malafide intent and everyone knows this. That provision would be the core reason SC will strike down the entire bill. That was actually an issue raised by PPP as well. They don't want this provision in the bill but PMLN members forced it.

 

[N.Siddiqui]

Let me guess, Khamosh mujahids in SC and Bar associations?

A case of separating the wheat from the chaff, all the five judges who indicted Nawaz Sharif in the Panama paper case was competent, the Aqama case actually.

And IK was also coming clean with a hundred plus cases pending against him, bails and some cases quashed.

Judge Asif Saeed Khosa specially who called Sharifs the 'Sicilian Mafia'.

 

[fatman17]

Aitizaz Ahsan on Fire

 

[villageidiot]

A case of separating the wheat from the chaff, all the five judges who indicted Nawaz Sharif in the Panama paper case was competent, the Aqama case actually.

And IK was also coming clean with a hundred plus cases pending against him, bails and some cases quashed.

Judge Asif Saeed Khosa specially who called Sharifs the 'Sicilian Mafia'.

My point is if the straight cops are not enough in numbers or don't wield teh influence to be of any use, it doesn't matter whether they exist. Rumor is bandial might be made to resign and after that, it's game over.

 

[Olympus81]

Stereotyping is not that required, there are good, non pliable, competent judges in SC, all the HC's and lower courts, magistrates too and lawyers.

So need to avoid putting all the judiciary in the same bracket.

I think we are at a point where the bad apples are a majority and the good ones are just a minority.