tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post950458296936491976..comments2024-03-09T10:58:56.668+02:00Comments on constitutionally speaking: Constitutional Court judges do arguePierre de Voshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17861888910368295788noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-84624542745279364162007-05-16T15:32:00.000+02:002007-05-16T15:32:00.000+02:00Dear Prof De VosThanks for these blogs on the 'ana...Dear Prof De Vos<BR/>Thanks for these blogs on the 'anal rape' saga, now apparently (and for weighty reasons) re-dubbed the 'male rape' saga. I (who was the presiding officer in the original Masiya decision) agree wholeheartedly with this insight(and those in the other comments below and elsewhere) advanced by you and others. See also my criticsm of the CC's decision under the blog 'Constitutional Court's conservative slip showing?' I also routed some of my comments mentioned there to some colleauges at the UP (Tukkies) in the hope of eliciting some academic debate (and possibly writings) on whether the CC's decision was right or wrong - here we should keep in mind the possiblity of (strictly speaking) retoactively recognizing cimes under custmary international law (that were not regarded as crimes under common law pre-1994)in order to prosecute and punish people who committed serious human rights transgressions before the dawn of the new constitutional democracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-32407137228303209972007-05-14T21:18:00.000+02:002007-05-14T21:18:00.000+02:00My version of how the Court works is what Justice ...My version of how the Court works is what Justice Sachs told me one day several years ago. Maybe they have changed the way they do things? I am not sure assigning a case before oral argument will build consensus. Since Chaskalson left the consensus that has sort of disintegrated. There are now far more dissenting opinions than three years ago.Pierre de Voshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17861888910368295788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-61905931990573489292007-05-14T21:05:00.000+02:002007-05-14T21:05:00.000+02:00Thanks for a fantastic blog! As far as i know, th...Thanks for a fantastic blog! As far as i know, the Concourt doesn't work how you have described it - which is how the US Supreme court works. The CJ assigns cases to judges before oral argument without knowing whether they represent the majority or minority. I think they do it that way to try and promote consensus-finding. I agree that the Masiya judgment is pathetic. This is the kind of reasoning I would expect from some of the more conservative or traditional judges, but, as you put it, what were O'Regan and Mokgoro smoking? At least Langa provided some sanity. A unanimous decision would have been too depressing for words!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com