From No Balls Supreme Court To A Revolt - Elections Are Warming Up

Who ever said the our Supreme Court had any balls!? Yes they are the bulwark of our so called democracy but the problem with that is they can change their ruling from one week to the next.

I remember they said before that government officials who wanted to run for an office were ok - that they did not have to resign from their current office. Then lo and behold a week later they said that the officials who were running for office were automatically resigned.

So which is it really? I'm confused. And here I thought the job of the Supreme Court was to make everything clear. Reminded me of the reports that came out about eggs.

First they were good, then they were bad, then the whites were good but the yolk was bad - my breakfast was confused that whole time. And of course the report was based upon who was paying for the research.

So is that the case here? Nah it can't be. Why pay when you can simply pad the court. At least the president did not copy U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937.

You know, the one with the controversial provision that would have granted the President Roosevelt the power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six. That would have resulted in a supreme court with members loyal to Roosevelt.

So we should be happy that she's only doing midnight appointments. And of course the SC has given itself the clearance to accept those appointments. So what if Section 15, Article VII prohibits the President from making appointments two months before the May 10 elections and until the end of her term on June 30.

Yes Section 4 and 9 of Article VIII, does require the President to fill up the vacancies in the judiciary within 90 days. But the thing is Chief Justice Reynato Puno will retire May 17 which is a week after the May 10 elections.

The president's term will end June 30. She doesn't have to appoint anyone because technically 90 days after May 17 is August 17. Let the next president do the appointment. Only to remove the picture of impropriety in the selection process.

It won't help if it seems she's doing it so she can have a back-up for her run as congresswoman. Wow a soon to be former president running for a lower position. I guess she's really going for that Prime Minister position.

Oooooh was I hinting on a charter change? That's bullshit. Instead of having only 6 years of disaster it's going to b extended indefinitely? Hell no.

And they say vote for the best candidate so that things like this will never happen again. But there is not best candidate. There's only the lesser between similar evil candidates.

Promises of stopping corruption? Hah! I'm sure the candidate will not be corrupt but it will not stop his supporters and power broker backers from being corrupt.

And if you go against them suddenly there's a revolt and you get replaced. A coup threat is in the air courtesy of former Brig. General Danilo Lim who, while in detention, is running for senator.

See this is what I don't get. Why is the Comelec allowing people who have a record of trying to topple the Philippine government the ability to represent the people that they disregarded when they rebelled.

I'm all for giving people second chances but if you fought against the government which is the people of this country, then you have no right to represent the very same people you were trying to destroy.

But then again that's just me. We'll see as the election heats up some more. Who knows, I may have more to say about it.

Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Ones

Well what else is new!?

Japanese fish dealers were naturally happy about the rejection of an outright ban on tuna fishing at a U.N. meeting in Doha, Qatar, Thursday.

Of course they would.

After all they consume about 80% of the world's Atlantic Bluefin tuna catch.

It doesn't help that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or CITES members did not see the need to worry about dwindling world stocks.

Most fishing nations said that the fears of the stock's collapse were overstated. So what would make them believe? When there is no more tuna to catch? Would that be enough proof that the stock collapse was not overstated.

Kudos to the three nations - United States, Norway and Kenya - for supporting the ban outright. Boo to the European Union for asking a delay to look into the matter first. Why not ban it right now then look into the matter?

Of course the Japanese government see a ban as a drastic step and calls for the enforcement of catch quotas instead under the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas or ICCAT.

But then again it is an international body with no teeth - it repeatedly fails to enforce catch limits and when it does set quotas it's not really enough.

Will this put more media attention on the situation? Probably, but then again history has shown that focused attention usually last as long as the next crisis comes up then everything else is forgotten because there are still other fish in the sea.

Amusing that they relate the eating of cows to the rights to catch fish. Yes we eat other animals as well like swine, cattle and chicken but they have already been domesticated and can reproduce under those situations.

Unfortunately there has been limited success in domesticating fish.

As the Asahi Newspaper in Japan asks: "How will various countries cooperate to manage tuna resources? The immediate crisis has passed, but the biggest issue remains unresolved."

How indeed. Maybe when we do resolve the issue there would be no more tuna to benefit from it.