Argentine senate rejects President Milei's Supreme Court appointees in blow to libertarian leader
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Argentina's senate on Thursday rejected the two Supreme Court candidates that President Javier Milei nominated by decree earlier this year , dealing a major blow to the libertarian leader.
The congressional defeat could complicate the implementation of Milei's radical state overhaul of Argentina, as analysts say the president had hoped to fill the Supreme Court vacancies with appointees who would rule favorably on challenges to his economic reforms.
Milei in February bypassed Congress to appoint two controversial Supreme Court candidates, invoking a clause in Argentina's constitution that he said empowered him to fill the vacant seats during the legislature's summer recess.
Politicians sharply criticized the move as an overreach of executive power, saying that a president has extremely limited authority to make judicial appointments during a congressional break.
'It's a serious institutional conflict that the executive branch has initiated against the legislative and judicial branches,' said Sen. Anabel Fernández Sagasti from Unión por la Patria party, the hardline opposition bloc. 'What we are discussing is an institutional assault.'
Both of Milei's candidates — federal judge Ariel Lijo and conservative law professor Manuel García-Mansilla — had failed last year to secure the two-thirds majority required to confirm the candidates in the senate, where the president's libertarian coalition holds just seven of the 72 seats.
Milei resorted to presidential decree to fill the two vacant seats on the five-judge court, testing the boundaries of his executive power as he has repeatedly done over the past year to overcome his minority in Congress.
His nominees have provoked fierce debate across the political spectrum. Lijo has drawn criticism from anti-corruption watchdogs and opposition from centrist parties scandalized by allegations that he laundered money, abused judicial authority and stalled graft cases assigned to him in federal court. Lijo has denied the accusations.
During the hours-long debate over the candidates on the senate floor Thursday, centrist lawmaker Luis Juez referred to Lijo by the name of a famous Argentine hypnotist, saying, 'I call him that because he'll put your judicial case to sleep if it suits political powers.'
García-Mansilla has faced resistance from the left-leaning Peronist opposition movement, which holds 45% of seats in the senate, for his conservative stance on social issues like abortion.
Milei has fiercely defended his candidates as worthy of serving on the nation's highest court and accused lawmakers of unfairly politicizing his nominations.
In a statement late Thursday, Milei's office said it 'repudiated' the senate vote.
'The senate has rejected nominations proposed by the president for purely political reasons and not for reasons of suitability,' it said, arguing that leaving the two seats empty on the court constituted an effort to obstruct justice.
It said Milei would seek to 'restore people's confidence in the institutions using all the tools that the constitution and popular vote have placed in his hands.'
Others breathed a sigh of relief at what they saw as a sign of Argentina's democracy working.
'Today the Argentine Senate put a stop to one of the most serious attacks on judicial independence since the country's return to democracy,' said Juan Pappier, deputy director of the Americas at Human Rights Watch. 'President Milei risked undermining some the very basic checks and balances of Argentina's democratic system.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Illinois congresswoman says Sikh man praying on House floor was ‘deeply troubling'
The Brief U.S. Rep. Mary Miller (R-Illinois) said in a since-deleted post on X that a Sikh chaplain leading a prayer in Congress was "deeply troubling." She initially misidentified the man as Muslim, according to multiple reports. Miller's comments have received backlash from several fellow members of Congress. WASHINGTON, D.C. - A Republican congresswoman representing parts of downstate Illinois is getting heat for saying in a since-deleted social media post on Friday that it was "deeply troubling" to her that a Sikh man led a prayer in the House of Representatives, after misidentifying the man as Muslim. What we know According to multiple reports, U.S. Rep. Mary Miller wrote on X: "It's deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning. This should have never been allowed to happen. "America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy!" Miller then edited the post to reflect that the man was actually Sikh, but later deleted it entirely. Still, Miller's post garnered criticism from multiple members of Congress, including Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat who represents parts of Chicago's northwest suburbs and is running for a U.S. Senate seat. He called Miller's comments anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim. "I am appalled by Rep. Mary Miller's comments—first misidentifying a Sikh chaplain as Muslim, then saying he should have 'never been allowed' to lead the House in prayer. Her remarks were both anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim, and they reflect a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance," Krishnamoorthi said. "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for all. The Sikh and Muslim communities have long contributed to the strength, service, and spirit of our nation. All Americans—regardless of party—must come together to reject these attacks and stand united against all forms of prejudice." Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), the minority leader in the House, also reacted to Miller's comments saying, "It's deeply troubling that such an ignorant and hateful extremist is serving in the United States Congress. That would be you, Mary." The Congressional Asian Pacific Americans Caucus, which includes Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) and Krishnamoorthi, said on X that it condemned Miller's anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim bigotry." "Sikhs and Muslims practice two separate and distinct religions, and conflating the two based on how someone looks is not only ignorant but also racist," the CAPAC added in its post. A request for comment to Miller's campaign was not immediately responded to on Saturday. The backstory It's not the first time Miller has drawn ire for controversial comments during her tenure in Congress. Just a few days into her first term in 2021, Miller apologized for knowingly quoting Adolf Hitler during a rally outside of the U.S. Capitol. While discussing the need for the Republican Party to appeal to young people, she said, "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, 'Whoever has the youth has the future.'" She made that comment on Jan. 5, 2021, the day before supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol to stop the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory. Miller apologized for the comment and said some were trying to "twist" her words to "mean something antithetical to my beliefs." She added she was "passionately" pro-Israel and "will always be a strong advocate and ally of the Jewish community." In 2022, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, Miller said at a rally the decision was a "victory for white life." A spokesman said Miller meant to say the decision was a victory for a "right to life," and that her comment was a "mix-up of words."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Biden's Doc Subpoenaed: Unraveling the Cognitive Cover-Up Scandal
(The Center Square) – Dr. Kevin O'Connor, former president Joe Biden's physician, has been subpoenaed by a U.S. House of Representatives panel investigating the physical and mental fitness of the 46th president. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, ordered O'Connor to appear for a deposition on June 27 as part of the investigation into Biden's 'cognitive decline.' The date, ironically enough, is one year to the day his only debate with Donald Trump went horribly wrong leading to an eventual withdrawal from the campaign on July 21. Previously, Comer 'requested' O'Connor to appear voluntarily for a transcribed interview but he refused. The chairman also noted that in the last Congress he requested the physician to take part in a transcribed interview, but Comer's request was blocked by the Biden White House. , Comer highlighted an assessment made by the physician in February 2024, months before the former president's debate performance, that led to withdrawing from the race. The chairman noted that O'Connor said Biden was ''a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency.'' Comer said the committee was also interested in exploring the physician's 'financial relationship with the Biden family' and whether it impacted his assessment of the former president's physical and mental fitness 'to fulfill his duties as president.' Comer concluded, 'Given your connections with the Biden family, the committee sought to understand if you contributed to an effort to hide former President Biden's fitness to serve from the American people. You refused the committee's request. However, to advance the committee's oversight and legislative responsibilities and interests, your testimony is critical.' In addition to O'Connor, Comer has sent letters to five former senior Biden White House aides, 'demanding they appear for transcribed interviews.' The chairman is seeking answers on the 'potentially unauthorized issuance of sweeping pardons and other executive action.' The subpoena comes on the heels of directing his counsel, the attorney general, and heads of relevant executive agencies to investigate 'whether certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state.' The president is asking whether an autopen was used to carry out executive actions, including executive orders, clemency grants, pardons, and presidential memoranda, and who directed the president's signatures to be affixed to the documents. The investigation furthers the debate as to whether the pardons and actions could be voided. Like Trump, Comer calls for transparency, calling the 'cover-up' a significant scandal in American history. 'The American people deserve full transparency and the House Oversight Committee is conducting a thorough investigation to provide answers and accountability,' Comer said. 'The cover-up of President Biden's mental decline is one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history. 'These five former senior advisors were eyewitnesses to President Biden's condition and operations within the Biden White House. They must appear before the House Oversight Committee and provide truthful answers about President Biden's cognitive state and who was calling the shots.' The investigations have been fueled in part by a book written by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, 'Original Sin,' which the congressman quoted as claiming, 'Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board.' Another book, written by former Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, is due in the fall. Entitled 'Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines,' the combative Biden staffer says she has left the Democratic Party and become an independent. The book's publisher has promised a run through the three weeks leading up to Biden withdrawing from pursuit of reelection.
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
