Venezuela’s Controversial High Court Ruling Reversed

Venezuela’s Controversial High Court Ruling Reversed
by Stephen Lendman
What’s it all about? On March 29, Venezuela’s Supreme Court (TSJ) ruled the National Assembly in contempt of court for continuing to allow three anti-Bolivarian politicians to be seated in the body despite elections they won declared null and void – because of irregularities discovered.
The High Court ordered them re-re-run. Evidence revealed vote-buying. Permitting the disputed deputies to hold their seats would give anti-President Maduro forces broader powers with a two-thirds majority.
The TSJ’s order was ignored, three disputed deputies sworn in illegally. Last August, TSJ justices declared National Assembly Presiding Council members and disputed deputies in contempt of court.
Last Wednesday, the TSJ ruled the National Assembly still in contempt of its ruling and constitutional law, saying:
“As long as the disrespect and invalidity of the proceedings of the National Assembly persists, this Constitutional Chamber will ensure that the parliamentary powers are exercised directly by this Chamber or by the body it has in place to ensure the rule of law.”
On Saturday, the TSJ reversed its Wednesday ruling – in response to Maduro’s request to review its decision.
TSJ president Maikel Moreno said Venezuelan officials may carry out their duties as long as as constitutional law is observed, stressing:
“The Supreme Court of Justice will never have conflicts with any other public power.” Maduro commented, saying “controversy…must be resolved through dialogue.”
Media scoundrels misinterpreted the High Court ruling, calling it a move to dissolve parliament. No anti-democratic coup occurred.
New York Times editors turned truth on its head, headlining “Venezuela’s Descent Into Dictatorship.”
Throughout Hugo Chavez’s tenure, The Times called him a “populist demagogue, an authoritarian, a caudillo (strongman).”
He was a widely respected model democrat, a social justice champion. Maduro carries his torch. He’s no authoritarian or dictator.
Times editors support fascist elements wanting Venezuela returned to its bad old days, Bolivarian fairness abolished, Big Oil getting control over the country’s vast hydrocarbon reserves.
US economic war on the country created great hardships for its people. Times editors blame Maduro for harshness instituted by Washington.
Their criticism of Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling was over-the-top. Reversing it restored the status quo.
Venezuelan hard times require concerted efforts to overcome. Low oil prices make restoring prosperity hard to achieve.
Key above other issues is menacing US policy, wanting fascist rule replacing Bolivarian democracy – jeopardized by neocons infesting Washington.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at 
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

Create your website with
Get started
%d bloggers like this: