Because of the position of the National Alliance (Nacionālā apvienība) on same-sex couples, the former President of the Constitutional Court was not elected to the Supreme Court on Thursday. Referring to the decision of the Constitutional Court, which obliged the Saeima to remedy the shortcomings in the legal framework affecting same-sex couples, the National Alliance pointed out that, in their opinion, the judge approached the problematic issue ideologically, not judicially.
The 40 members of the Saeima factions of the New Unity (Jaunā Vienotība), Development/For! (Attīstībai/Par!) and New Conservative Party (Jaunā konservatīvā partija) voted in favor of the appointment of Osipova as a judge of the Supreme Court.
29 MPs voted against, mostly from the Union of Greens and Farmers (Zaļo un zemnieku savienība), Independents (Neatkarīgie) and National Alliance fractions of the Saeima. There were 16 abstentions from the Harmony (Saskaņa) faction of the Saeima, which meant that there were not enough votes to approve Osipova - due to the ideological convictions of the National Alliance working in the coalition.
"The public statements of Judge Sanita Osipova are more indicative of political insights, ideological insights, than legal insights. If Sanita Osipova wants to deal with politics, with legislation, which is the competence of the legislature, then this year there will be elections to the Saeima, and Sanita Osipova, I assume, has every chance to get on the list of a liberal party, be it Progressives or the New Conservative Party or Development/For! But in the judiciary, judges should be politically neutral," said Jānis Iesalnieks, a board member of the National Alliance, from the rostrum of the Saeima before the vote.
Expressing the opinion that Osipova is too liberal for the Supreme Court,
Aleksandrs Kiršteins, representing the National Alliance, also called on the Saeima not to support her nomination and urged the judge to start working "in one of the (..) liberal universities, where there are already many people with peculiar views who are now trying to correct, say, the language, they declare that you cannot use the word 'nēģeris' ('negro' in Latvian) or something else, and you should not say 'krievs' ('a Russian') but 'a person of Russian nationality'".
However, there were also those within the ranks of the National Alliance who did not vote against Osipova's candidacy. Janīna Kursīte-Pakule did not vote at all, because her ideological reasons conflicted with her deep respect for the judge and her qualifications.
"I have a very high opinion of her as a professional, but it is difficult for me to say anything about the rest. I cannot vote against, but several such moments were pointed out in the debate. I would perhaps not be so categorical. That is why I did not vote," says Kursīte-Pakule.
Perhaps for similar reasons, the Speaker of the Saeima, Ināra Mūrniece, did not take part in the vote, but Neatkarīgā was unable to find out her reasoning.
The opposition Union of Greens and Farmers also found Osipova's candidacy unacceptable precisely because of her position on the rights of same-sex couples. Viktors Valainis, representing the Union, also pointed out in the debate that Osipova plans to work in the field of civil law at the Supreme Court, which is diametrically opposed to her previous academic work.
"This raises questions as to why this choice (..) civil law field is mostly governed by the Civil Law. (..) And here family rights is the one that I will dwell on a bit more, and it is also the institution of marriage, adoption and other issues that cause a lot of discussions not only for us here in the Saeima (..) The Supreme Court can also make interpretations, clarify the norms of the legislator, also those that the legislator has not yet fully considered or about which there is a lot of discussion in the Saeima.
And it is precisely this family issue where we think a conflict could arise between the Saeima and the Supreme Court, perhaps in the form of definitions or something else,"
Valainis vocalized his party's doubts while acknowledging her high professionalism and suitability to work in another department of the Supreme Court.
The majority of the members of the Harmony faction also do not like Osipova's work so far. Therefore, the majority of the representatives of this party abstained from the vote or did not participate at all. Jānis Urbanovičs, head of the party's Saeima faction, explained to Neatkarīgā that Harmony did not like some of the judgments of the court headed by Osipova.
"We believe that she is highly professional, but in some Constitutional Court cases initiated by us, we disagree with the judgments that were made by the court headed by her. There were educational issues where we, in my opinion, were not properly heard and our arguments were not taken into account," said Urbanovičs.
The Constitutional Court had previously declared that the provisions of the Education Law providing for the transition to Latvian-language-only high school education were compatible with the country's Constitution. This provision of the law was challenged before the Constitutional Court by the members of the Harmony party.
In another case, the members of Harmony, who wrote an application to the Constitutional Court, won - the court recognized that private universities and colleges would not be obliged to use the Latvian language for study programs.
However, the arguments put forward by Urbanovičs did not convince Inga Goldberga, who was the only representative of Harmony who supported the candidacy of Osipova.