| > The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court. What the heck is a “virtual attack”? Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever they want”. Do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. Yes, it is so old that the newer 1988 constitution should be observed instead, and it says investigations must be started by the Federal Prosecution Service. Instead they decided to reinterpret the very clear wording of the regiment (“within the premises of the Supreme Court”) to mean something completely different (“whatever happens on the internet”). Again, do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law. In other words, “they make their own rules”? No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. The Supreme Court does not have the right to override the constitution. |