Bens Latkovskis: Sanita Osipova, already called president by some, taught politicians a hard lesson

In recent weeks, a new star has appeared on Latvia's political sky - the President of the Constitutional Court (CC) Sanita Osipova, whom some particularly enthusiastic left-wing liberal apostles already see as Latvia's next president.

What has made Osipova so popular? As President of the CC, she undertook to be the main commentator on a debatable but ideologically extremely important issue. I am talking about the CC judgment in case no. 2019-33-01 “On the compliance of Section 155, Paragraph one of the Labour Law with the first sentence of Section 110 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia”. The judgment of the Supreme Court indicates that the norm of the Labour Law that only the father of a child has the right to 10 calendar days of leave [after the birth of a child] does not comply with the Constitution. In CC's opinion, the child's mother's girlfriend can also apply for such leave if she forms a joint family with this girlfriend.

I am not a lawyer and I am not going to challenge the legal aspects of the CC judgment, but I do not have to be a lawyer to establish that this judgment is based on a purely ideological position. Article 110 of the Constitution, which stipulates that “the State shall protect and support marriage - a union between a man and a woman, the family, the rights of parents and rights of the child”, turns out to be interpreted not exactly as those who had not so long ago incorporated it into the Constitution (in 2005). Some may think - what should even be interpreted there - the Constitution stipulates that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and that’s it. However, in Article 110 of the Constitution, this phrase is followed not by a full stop, but by a comma, followed by the family, the rights of parents and rights of the child. You see, the family is something more than a marriage, and by advocating for the protection of these extended family rights, CC passed a judgment according to which the child's mother's girlfriend can also claim parental leave of the child's father (?!).

In today's world, the answers to questions that did not cause the slightest disagreement in the recent past - what is family, father, mother, parents, girlfriend, partner, gender, are no longer unambiguous. They depend on the ideological vision of each individual. Such are also the legal interpretations of these concepts. Lawyers can argue with each other on these issues, and they will not be clear until one or the other changes their ideological beliefs. Consequently, not only the legal qualifications of lawyers but also their ideological position comes to the fore.

If anyone wants to say at this point - what ideology could there even be, in jurisprudence, just like in physics, everything is determined by laws, then I would like to remind you that in the United States, where litigation is a national sport and the number of lawyers per thousand inhabitants is the highest in the world, the election of judges of the Supreme Court is given a huge importance. Almost as big as the presidential election. Why? Because it is the Supreme Court that interprets the disputed legal norms and determines the ideological direction of the state.

Here we come to what Baiba Rudevska, a conservative lawyer, said in an interview with Neatkarīgā (November 24, 2020): “We are now paying a heavy price for the negligence with which our politicians have treated the selection of candidates for the post of CC judge over the last 20 years. By comparison, look at how long, in detail, and even aggressively, members of the U.S. Senate question candidates for the position of Supreme Court judge: it's like black and white compared to our questioning.”

Certain circles put Osipova on a pedestal, call her our queen and the next president. But what do we know about her? Pretty much nothing. However, under her leadership, a CC decision was made, the consequences of which will be extremely important for the future of Latvia. I don't even want to judge them in particular, because the story is not about how good or bad Osipova is. The story is that the case of Osipova must become a lesson for the future, because if we look at history, it turns out that almost the same forces that in December 2005, overcoming great resistance, placed the norm in the Constitution that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, voted on a CC judge on July 14, 2011, who turned this norm into one big nothing. If it seems to anyone that I am dramatizing this, I invite you to return again to Baiba Rudevska's interview, where she refers to the ECtHR judgment in the case of Oliari and Others v Italy and its consequences.

Osipova is CC's longest-serving judge. She was confirmed as an CC judge by the Saeima on July 14, 2011. It was the same 10th Saeima that was already working in the pre-dismissal regime and in which the deputies with a relatively conservative worldview were in the majority. According to the laws of that time, the vote on the approval of the CC judge was secret, and the Saeima voted almost unanimously for Osipova - 83 for, 0 against, 1 abstention. There was no debate. Ilma Čepāne on behalf of the commission briefly announced Osipova (3 minutes 40 seconds) and no one spoke in the debate. This is how Osipova came to the CC without any discussions, without a debate in the Saeima.

I must also agree with those who point out that it was not Osipova alone who delivered the disputed CC judgment. None of the CC judges expressed a different view. That, too, is well understood. In Latvia, CC judges are elected for ten years. Then they have to look for a new job. It's best if it's somewhere higher up. Ineta Ziemele, Osipova's predecessor, who is now a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg, showed exactly where this "higher" is. Unlike in the US, where conservative judges also have the potential to reach career heights, the EU has a strong tilt to the left and one can only apply for a career in EU headquarters with the position that is currently being publicly demonstrated by Osipova.

Osipova's own dedication can be understood. Next summer, her ten years as a CC judge will expire and she’ll have to think about new horizons. Saeima elections in 2022, Presidential elections in summer 2023. If you fail to get into European bodies, which are, of course, a priority, then, in the worst case, you can qualify for a decent chair right here. The main thing is to get your foot in the door in time. This seems to have been done successfully. At the same time, politicians need to take a much more responsible approach to nominating and approving CC judges, so they won’t later have to shake their heads, shrug and portray ignorance - oh, how in the world did that happen?