The supreme Court of Justice of Argentina has entered a new phase, marked by internal divisions and a reduced bench of only three judges. This shift comes after the departure of Juan Carlos Maqueda on December 27 of last year, leaving the court composed of Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, and Ricardo Lorenzetti. The dynamics within the court have been strained, especially between Rosatti and Lorenzetti, who frequently enough find themselves voting in opposite directions. This has created a challenging environment where unanimous decisions are essential, as the court can only issue rulings with three coinciding votes.
In cases where consensus is unattainable, the judges face two options: either put the cause aside until new members join the court or call upon conjueces—presidents of the Federal Chambers across the country—to participate in the decision-making process. these conjueces are selected by raffle for each case, expanding the bench to five magistrates to ensure a majority vote. To maintain consistency in jurisprudence, the court introduced a Special Conjueces Regulation last year, ensuring that the same conjueces are called for similar cases.
The internal strife extends beyond judicial cases to the management of the court itself. Rosatti and Rosenkrantz have been working in tandem, while Lorenzetti has openly expressed his dissent. Last year, Lorenzetti’s disagreements were particularly vocal, with sonoras dissidences signed over issues such as the reorganization of the administration area, judicial social work, and the appointment of a secretary for the Criminal Secretariat. Lorenzetti argued that these administrative reforms were influencing future judges who might join the court.
The tensions reached a peak when Lorenzetti abstained from participating in the tribute act to bid farewell to maqueda, an event led by his colleagues. He criticized the court’s operations, stating that it “works badly, spends the judicial budget, and makes unjustified appointments.” In response,the majority of the court published statistics on case resolutions to counter these claims.
As the court resumes its activities after the summer break, the initial weeks are expected to proceed slowly. The internal climate remains tense, with the judges navigating their differences while striving to fulfill their duties.
| key Points | Details |
|—————-|————-|
| Current Judges | Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, Ricardo Lorenzetti |
| Challenges | Internal divisions, need for unanimous decisions |
| Options for Deadlock | Put cases aside or call conjueces |
| Conjueces Regulation | Ensures consistency in jurisprudence |
| Management Disputes | Reorganization, appointments, and budget concerns |
The Supreme Court of Justice faces a critical juncture, balancing its judicial responsibilities with the need to address internal discord. The coming months will reveal whether the court can overcome these challenges and maintain its role as the highest judicial authority in Argentina.
Argentina’s Supreme Court Faces Internal Strife and Calls for Renewal
Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice is at a crossroads, grappling with internal divisions and mounting pressure for reform. The court, described as “broken” by government sources, is navigating a complex landscape of judicial challenges and administrative reforms. President Javier Milei has proposed two new candidates to join the bench,signaling a potential shift in the court’s dynamics.
A Divided Court Struggles for Consensus
The Supreme Court’s current composition has led to notable disagreements, particularly in high-profile cases. One such case is the Levinas ruling, which mandates that all cases be reviewed by the Superior Court of Justice of the City of Buenos Aires. This decision has sparked rebellion among national judges, who view it as a step toward the dissolution of national justice in favor of local jurisdiction.
Without Judge Juan Carlos Maqueda, the court lacks the majority to uphold the Levinas ruling. As a government source noted, “The Court does not have a majority to decide the same thing that was said in the ruling Levinas.” This has left the court in a precarious position, with Judges Horacio Rosatti and Ricardo Lorenzetti supporting the ruling, while Judge Carlos Rosenkrantz opposes it.
Administrative Reforms and Daily Management
To address operational challenges, the court has implemented regulatory reforms. Notably, the signatures of two judges are now sufficient to approve contracts, purchases, licenses, and other administrative matters. This streamlined process aims to improve the court’s efficiency amid its internal struggles.
Though, the court’s ability to function effectively remains in question.A government insider told La Nacion, “The Court is broken; it is indeed necessary to integrate it so that with the new judges that arrive, these clashes decrease and change the internal work climate.”
Milei’s Push for New Judges
President Javier Milei has proposed two candidates to join the Supreme Court: federal judge Ariel Lijo and academic Manuel garcía-Mansilla. Lijo’s nomination has already garnered nine signatures and is set to be reviewed by the senate during the remarkable sessions period, which concludes on February 17.
The government is optimistic about securing support from Kirchnerism to approve Lijo’s nomination. this move is seen as a step toward resolving the court’s internal conflicts and fostering a more collaborative environment.
Key Challenges Ahead
The Supreme Court’s immediate challenges include addressing the fallout from the levinas ruling and ensuring a smooth transition with the potential addition of new judges.As one court source stated, “There are no other thorny issues instantly, there should be no problems.” Though, the court’s ability to navigate these challenges will depend on its capacity to overcome internal divisions and adapt to its evolving role in Argentina’s judicial system.
| key Points | Details |
|————————————|—————————————————————————–|
| Internal Divisions | disagreements over the Levinas ruling and administrative decisions. |
| Regulatory Reforms | Two judges’ signatures now suffice for administrative approvals. |
| New Nominations | Ariel Lijo and Manuel García-Mansilla proposed by President Javier Milei. |
| Senate Review | Lijo’s nomination to be reviewed by February 17. |
| government’s view | The court is “broken” and requires integration to reduce internal clashes. |
As Argentina’s Supreme Court navigates these turbulent waters, the appointment of new judges could mark a turning point in its efforts to restore stability and public confidence. The coming weeks will be critical in determining the court’s future trajectory.
Political Deadlock and Judicial Challenges: The García-Mansilla and Kirchner Saga
The political landscape in Argentina remains fraught with tension as the government grapples with the delicate issue of judicial appointments and the ongoing legal battles surrounding former President Cristina Kirchner. At the heart of the matter is the stalled nomination of García-Mansilla, whose candidacy for the Supreme Court of Justice faces significant hurdles.
García-Mansilla’s nomination: A Year-Long Stalemate
García-Mansilla’s situation is particularly precarious. According to government sources, he has failed to secure the minimum signatures required for his nomination to proceed. This has led to speculation that he may be designated by commission decree for one year, a temporary solution that would allow the government to negotiate a broader political agreement with Kirchnerism.
The proposed agreement would involve expanding the Supreme Court to accommodate García-Mansilla and other candidates. However, this idea has been met with resistance from Kirchnerists themselves. As one source noted, “In 15 days you can hardly get the votes that they did not have in nine months.”
Kirchner’s Legal Battles: A Complex Timeline
Meanwhile, Cristina Kirchner continues to navigate a labyrinth of legal challenges. The former president was recently sentenced to six years in prison and perpetual disqualification from public office in the Road Case, which involved allegations of favoring Lázaro Báez in road tenders in Santa Cruz.
The Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation upheld the sentance, but the case is far from over. Prosecutor Mario Villar has filed an extraordinary appeal, seeking to increase Kirchner’s sentence to 12 years, while her defense team is pushing for acquittal. the Cassation Court is expected to address this appeal in the first half of the year. If the appeal is admitted, the case could be sent to the Supreme Court, though a decision is unlikely before the winter recess.
If the appeal is rejected, Kirchner’s lawyers can still file a direct complaint with the Supreme Court. This means that a final decision on her case may not come until late this year or early next year. If her conviction is upheld, Kirchner could face house arrest.
The Supreme Court’s Role: A Balancing Act
The supreme Court itself is operating with a reduced number of members,adding another layer of complexity to these proceedings. Internal differences within the court could further complicate its ability to function effectively.
As the judicial year begins, all eyes are on the court’s handling of these high-profile cases. The outcome will not only determine Kirchner’s fate but also shape the broader political and judicial landscape in Argentina.
| Key Points | Details |
|————————————|—————————————————————————–|
| García-Mansilla’s Nomination | Lacks required signatures; might potentially be designated by commission decree for a year. |
| Proposed supreme court Expansion | Aims to accommodate García-Mansilla and other candidates. |
| Cristina kirchner’s Legal Battles | Sentenced to six years in prison in the Road Case; appeals pending. |
| Timeline for Kirchner’s Case | Final decision expected late this year or early next year. |
| Supreme Court’s Current State | Operating with reduced members; internal differences may impact decisions. |
A Political Chess Game
The government’s attempts to reach a political agreement with Kirchnerism have been met with skepticism. While the administration has made gestures of goodwill, Cristina Kirchner remains the key to unlocking the necessary votes in the Senate.
Recent developments, such as the reopening of a case involving errors in Kirchner’s affidavit and the Financial Facts Unit’s (FIU) complaints against Kirchnerism, have further strained relations. These actions were seen as attempts to pressure Kirchner, but they have not yielded the desired results.
As the political and judicial drama unfolds, one thing is clear: the road ahead is fraught with uncertainty. The government’s ability to navigate these challenges will have far-reaching implications for Argentina’s future.
For more insights into Argentina’s political and judicial developments, stay tuned to our coverage.
Interview: Navigating Argentina’s Judicial and Political Landscape
Q: What are the main divisions within Argentina’s Supreme Court,and how are they impacting its functionality?
A: The divisions within Argentina’s Supreme Court primarily stem from disagreements over the Levinas ruling and administrative decisions. These internal clashes have led to a perception that the court is “broken,” with the government emphasizing the need for integration to reduce conflicts.The court’s reduced number of members further complicates its ability to function effectively, as internal differences may hinder decision-making processes.
Q: What regulatory reforms have been introduced to streamline administrative approvals?
A: in an effort to address these challenges, regulatory reforms have been implemented. Notably, the requirement for administrative approvals has been simplified, with only two judges’ signatures now needed. This change aims to expedite procedures and reduce bureaucratic bottlenecks.
Q: Who are the new nominees for the Supreme Court, and what is the status of their appointments?
A: President javier Milei has proposed Ariel Lijo and Manuel García-Mansilla as new nominees. However, their appointments face notable hurdles. García-mansilla’s nomination, in particular, has been stalled due to a lack of required signatures. Meanwhile, Lijo’s nomination is set to undergo review by the Senate by Febuary 17.
Q: What is the government’s viewpoint on the current state of the Supreme Court?
A: the government views the Supreme Court as “broken” and in urgent need of integration to address internal clashes and restore public confidence. The appointment of new judges is seen as a potential turning point in achieving stability and improving the court’s functionality.
Q: What is the importance of García-Mansilla’s nomination, and why has it encountered delays?
A: García-Mansilla’s nomination has been in a year-long stalemate due to his failure to secure the minimum required signatures.This has led to speculation that he may be designated by commission decree for one year, a temporary solution that would allow the government more time to negotiate a broader political agreement with Kirchnerism.
Q: What role does Cristina Kirchner play in the current judicial landscape?
A: Cristina Kirchner remains a central figure in Argentina’s judicial and political landscape. Her ongoing legal battles, including a six-year prison sentence in the Road Case, have significant implications for the judicial system. Additionally, her influence is crucial for unlocking the necessary votes in the Senate to advance judicial appointments.
Q: What are the key details of Cristina Kirchner’s legal challenges?
A: Kirchner was sentenced to six years in prison and perpetual disqualification from public office in the Road Case. While the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation upheld the sentence, her legal team has filed appeals. A final decision is expected by late this year or early next year. If her conviction is upheld, she could face house arrest.
Q: What is the proposed expansion of the Supreme Court, and why is it contentious?
A: The government has proposed expanding the Supreme Court to accommodate García-Mansilla and other candidates. However, this idea has faced resistance, particularly from Kirchnerists, who argue that it is unlikely to gain the necessary support in such a short timeframe.
Q: How is the government attempting to navigate these challenges?
A: the government is seeking to reach a political agreement with Kirchnerism to advance judicial nominations. However, recent actions, such as reopening a case involving Kirchner’s affidavit and the Financial Facts Unit’s complaints against Kirchnerism, have strained relations and failed to yield the desired outcomes.
Q: What are the broader implications of these developments for Argentina?
A: The outcomes of these judicial and political challenges will have far-reaching implications for Argentina’s future. The Supreme Court’s ability to function effectively and the resolution of high-profile cases like Kirchner’s will shape the nation’s political and judicial landscape.
Conclusion
Argentina’s Supreme Court is navigating a complex and turbulent period marked by internal divisions, stalled nominations, and high-profile legal battles. The appointment of new judges, particularly the contentious nomination of garcía-Mansilla, could mark a turning point in restoring stability and public confidence. Simultaneously occurring, Cristina Kirchner’s legal challenges and the government’s attempts to negotiate political agreements add further layers of complexity.The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining the court’s trajectory and its impact on Argentina’s broader political and judicial landscape.
