When a judge forgets about the public treasury and becomes a bureaucrat for an NGO

The decision, presented as an act of "justice," is in reality a treacherous blow to the principle of fiscal balance and to the most basic notion of common sense. The judge, in his eagerness to dress as a hero of the unprotected, seems to have confused the bench with the stage and the law with an emotional melodrama.

González Charvay's ruling, which declares the presidential veto invalid, was based on the injunction filed by the parents of two children. With rhetoric bordering on childishness, the decision argues that "the right to health, education, and rehabilitation of children with disabilities must prevail over budgetary restrictions".

Does the judge live in a world where money materializes by magic? Or does he blatantly ignore that every peso spent must come from taxpayers' pockets? The ruling, far from being an act of "protection," is an open invitation to fiscal irresponsibility, and the judge, a mere bureaucrat of populism, dares to set a precedent on the economic future of all Argentinians.

When legal technique goes down the drain

Judge González Charvay's ruling is not only ideologically biased, but also, from a strictly technical perspective, is a legal travesty. As doctrine and common sense rightly point out, the presidential veto, that is, the "non-approval of a bill", is not a justiciable act. It is not an administrative act, it is not a decree, it is not an external manifestation with direct effects on citizens. It is, as accurately described in the legal analysis that has circulated, an "internal manifestation of will" within the complex process of lawmaking.

The judge, in his role as an NGO bureaucrat, has committed the gravest blunder by ignoring this essential principle. By judicializing the "no," the judge has replaced the legislative process with his own arbitrary interpretation, turning judges into a "third chamber," a role the Constitution did not assign to them. By allowing judicial review to be triggered by "every gesture," and not only by final results that directly affect citizens, Judge Charvay has demonstrated a clumsiness and ignorance of doctrine that can only be described as an act of deep ignorance or deliberate bad faith. In this sad scene, the image of a judge in a robe and donkey ears perfectly illustrates the situation.

The presidential argument, which invoked the "non-negotiable fiscal balance", is the only serious and responsible one in this discussion. The veto was based on an estimated fiscal impact of up to 0.42% of GDP. In a country bleeding from uncontrolled public spending, the stance of not accepting an increase without a clear source of funding is the only way to avoid total economic collapse. Meanwhile, Judge Charvay, immersed in his bubble of privilege, seems to care little about the sustainability of the state. His decision is a punch in the face to all those striving to clean up public finances.

González Charvay, in his eagerness to cite international treaties and opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, forgets the local reality, the limits of a national budget, and the consequences of his own ruling. He is, in essence, a judge who prefers the easy applause of populism to the rigorous application of the law and respect for the nation's finances. A shameful judicial spectacle that, once again, reminds us of the danger of leaving the country's future in the hands of activists in robes.