Egyptian court skips decision on constitution
CAIRO — Egypt's highest court on Sunday indefinitely postponed a highly anticipated ruling on whether the assembly that drafted a new constitution was legal, leaving the nation's upcoming referendum on the constitution in a state of uncertainty and putting off for now a direct confrontation with President Mohamed Morsy over his claim of judicial immunity.
The judges of the Supreme Constitutional Court said they could not convene because pro-Morsy demonstrators gathered in front of the court's building had threatened them and blocked their entry. The public, however, was able to enter the building.
The court did not explain why it could not have ruled on the case somewhere else. In a statement, the judges said they had to suspend their session because to go on would subject them to “psychological or physical pressure.”
The court's session had been widely anticipated as a showdown between Morsy and the country's judges over Morsy's declaration this month that the judiciary had no power to rule on his decrees. Since then, the judiciary and Morsy have engaged in a game of chicken over who decides legal matters that has divided the government and the nation.
On Sunday, Ahmed El Zind, president of Egypt's Judge's Club, which represents a large group of judges nationwide, announced that its members would not conduct the referendum, now scheduled for Dec. 15.
The court was supposed to rule on whether the Brotherhood-dominated constitutional assembly, which drafted the proposed constitution, was legal.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pirates reassign Liz to make roster room for Morton
- Cops: Man shoots 11-year-old with BB gun; boy is critical
- Police charge Allentown teen for beating, holding ex-girlfriend at gunpoint
- Rossi: After L.A., NFL should tread carefully
- Couple attempts theft at North Huntingdon Wal-Mart
- Posthumous election wins have happened in Western Pa., nation
- Early success in White House race a pleasant surprise for Carson
- Pedestrian injured in accident near busway ramp in Carnegie
- Wrong-way driver causes head-on crash in Center
- Acme man’s ephemeral sculptures appear to defy laws of physics
- Oncologists wary of scaled-back guidelines in cancer screenings