Maltese

During the last two or three days, certain opinions have proliferated in political and journalistic environments that the Supreme Court is an ideological court , corrupted, arbitrary, a sectarian revenge performer and that it also runs over rights, engaging with those of families. All right.

These things have not begun to say them, during the last two or three days, Gabriel Rufián. Nor Torra. Ni Otegui. Nor Puigdemont. Neither any other independentist clinging to the curse that political prisoners exist in Spain because not even the Supreme offers guarantees nor has it modified the incorrigible military condition of a nation in which many Saxon correspondents still fantasize about the theme park of eternal fascism to come to. to become the Two Passes.

No. These things, during the last two or three days, have been said by people of order, integrated, who have often taken a defensive position in the battlement of 78 and that, following the trial, made Marchena and her court a Spenglerian portrait according to which the magistrates of the Supreme were the platoon with which democracy would be saved. Long live Spain and long live the king, etc.

I don't know what Marchena will think after having learned, during the last two or three days, that it now turns out that she belongs to a Czech Marxist . Nor is it now to explore the reasons why there are fetish democrats who consider moving Franco's remains an attack on half of Spain! with which the same foundations of the Crown and our common life are put at risk. We live among so many apocalyptics that we can support a few more. But, beyond the pretext of each one to feel aggrieved by Franco's exhumation, there is no choice but to ask if the anger really justifies the demolition of the prestige of the Supreme Court, with identical arguments to those handled by independence, just about days before the Supreme made public the sentence and becomes the institution that suffers more pressure and political response in the history of democracy. When Puigdemont, Otegui and the other charlatans from outside the walls say that the Supreme is partial and politicized, which of these constitutionalists who fail to comply with the opening of the grave despite the double parliamentary and judicial mandate will be morally entitled to tell them that they are not right ?

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

• Supreme Court
• Spain
• Gabriel Rufián

TribunaFranco, return to El Pardo

EditorialProvocation of a divided separatism

Global Court Clapping the judges even if you don't like them