Something else is afoot

Dear Editor,
The Office of the Presidency (the “Office”) is being mischievous in its release issued on July 22, 2017, and titled, “President’s comments complement and do not contradict Acting CJ’s ruling.”
In that release, the Office states: “While the President believes that the Constitution was crafted the way it was to give preference to the appointment of ‘a person who holds or who has held office as a judge of a court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such court or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge’, he has never disagreed with the acting Chief Justice’s ruling in that the Constitution clearly states that ‘any other fit and proper person’ can be appointed. President Granger’s comments complement and do not contradict that ruling.”
Firstly, the release did not include everything the president is alleged to have said in response to the acting CJ’s ruling. Specifically, the statement which the president allegedly made on or about July 13, 2017, which the Office sneakily omitted is: “The Chief Justice gave an interpretation based on her perception of the Law and I will continue to act in accordance with my perception of the Constitution; that is to say I will not appoint somebody who I do not consider fit and proper.”
The public has taken notice of this statement. Let us not try to hide it. The President knows well that it is the job of the Chief Justice to give “an interpretation based on her perception of the Law” on an issue before the court; and it is his job to abide by what the Chief Justice says, until it is overruled or the law changes.
But the President and his Attorney General are of the opinion that they are masters of the court, and their “perception” is superior to that of the court itself. It begs the question as to why he appointed the acting CJ in the first place, since he seems to think he knows more than the acting CJ.
Frankly, whether we like it or not and as a matter of law, a republic is not interested in a President’s perception of a law when a court in the republic makes a legal decision or offers a declaratory judgment on that law.
All this small talk of believing in the separation of powers is just that, idle talks. Indeed, for the President to say that “I will continue to act in accordance with my perception of the Constitution” is to suggest, at the very least, that the President objects to what the court declared. His comment does not compliment what the acting CJ said.
The issue here is not about “fit and proper”; it is about the “perception” of the President (executive) overriding or subtly dismissing the “perception” of the court/acting CJ (legislative).
And, incidentally, no one is disputing that a chairman ought to have integrity and demonstrate independence and be impartial. That was never in dispute so why is the President so obsessed with these words or qualities, unless he is trying to divert the public’s attention from the real issue?
It is not going to happen. The people are aware that the President and his Attorney General, neither of whom is a wordsmith, are attempting to play games with words and they are losing. Too many persons are aware that something else is afoot. The President should cease playing games with words and instruct his staff that in the future, include all material facts in their press releases.

Sincerely,
Rakesh Rampertab