Guirigay refers to speech that is hard to follow, noise, discordant voices, and a scene of confusion. It comes from a Spanish usage dictionary that catalogs how language can blur meaning and create noise in communication.
The narrative focuses on a Madrid gathering where Carlos Lesmes led the Supreme Court and the General Assembly of the Judiciary in what appeared to be a decisive ordinary plenary session. The central topic that day was the selection of two Constitutional Court magistrates to replace departing CGPJ members. One term had been scheduled for a decade earlier, with a nine-year appointment ending in June 2013 and expiring on 12 June of the following year.
Minutes show the plenary meeting started at ten in the morning and voting closed forty minutes later. The broader question of whether caseloads and appointments could be kept within a legal deadline highlighted a larger trend: a drift in Spain’s judicial and constitutional framework that critics say is reinforced by political strategies designed to stall renewal of the CGPJ. Concerns centered on a pattern where the People’s Party policy is seen as delaying appointments and stretching terms beyond the legal five-year limit, undermining timely renewals when no remedial action appears available.
Shortly after eleven, Lesmes introduced the final agenda item: appointments. He spoke about renewed authority, stressing that the Constitution and the Judiciary Law require action, while seeking a serious negotiation stance. He suggested that if negotiating progress did not appear soon, he would take steps, making the point clearly that action would not wait for someone else.
He then requested an explanation for the lack of agreement since the previous September. The conservative mediator began by acknowledging limited time and the reality that a quick resolution was unlikely, even with several meetings left.
Lesmes pressed for clarity, asking what forecasts could be expected today. A chorus of voices outlined the current stalemate. One member summarized: a roster of nine candidates from varied backgrounds had been proposed, with arguments that no single candidate existed yet, and a sense of shared responsibility for any delays did not rest with one side alone.
Concha Sáez warned during a prior plenary that negotiations needed a precise timetable, and she kept that stance in view, noting that the situation had not changed. Another participant pointed out the need to set a date because the president risked being left in an awkward limbo if no schedule was established. The room grew tense as the negotiators debated deadlines and calendar dates.
José María Macías urged caution, insisting that the process not be conducted under pressure. He called for input from European authorities and noted that Didier Reynders, the EU commissioner, would travel to Madrid, with the European Commission soon to report on the matter. A colleague at the table added that NATO’s views would also matter in assessing the situation.
As the discussion continued, a proposal emerged: if possible, a date should be set with a view to presenting a concrete plan for appointment by early October. The idea was to convene an extraordinary plenary for a subsequent sixteenth meeting if a proposal could be prepared for an earlier date. Yet the calendar remained unsettled, with social and national holidays complicating scheduling, and the need to greet visiting dignitaries at the Royal Palace looming in the background.
Many participants accepted that October presented a reasonable deadline, though some insisted the exact date be visible before any commitment. There was a sense that the matter would be resolved by mid-October, but the ultimate timing remained uncertain, pending the president’s visibility and the broader political climate. The debate ended with no final resolution, leaving the group in a cautious, controlled mood rather than heightened tension.
Amid the calm, a colleague teased that the president of the Judicial Professional Association had urged Lesmes to resign. The exchange sparked laughter and a sense that the situation remained ripe with political theatrics, even as participants sought a practical way forward. A deputy surfaced with a phone to share the perspective of colleagues who held influence beyond the room, underscoring the pressure and high stakes involved.
In a moment of levity and impatience, Lesmes was reminded that some within the conservative camp were eager for his departure, while others acknowledged the political fragility of any attempt to replace him with an unelected figure. The broader stakes involved in the appointment process—renewing the CGPJ, shaping the judiciary, and managing the overlap between the constitutional and executive branches—were clear. The room eventually acknowledged that the path forward would likely involve a new timetable and further negotiations, but not immediately.
The atmosphere suggested a political landscape where the head of theGeneral Assembly of the Judiciary faced pressure from both sides, and where any replacement would have to command legitimacy within the institution and broad political acceptance. The dialogue closed with a recognition that the governance structure needed decisive steps to move past the current stalemate while preserving the integrity of the appointments process.
The discussion ended with a light note on the potential for a realignment of leadership, hinting at possible changes in the upper echelons of the judiciary. The emphasis remained on ensuring that the appointments would occur in due time and that the constitutional framework would be respected, without giving in to the kind of theatrics that had characterized the prior exchanges.
get in rags
Lesmes challenged the room by insisting that the issues diverged sharply and urging the progressive bloc to name their candidates from a robust slate of nine diverse contenders. The message was clear: delays were not acceptable, and the responsibility lay with all sides to deliver a prompt and credible path forward.
A participant noted that the process required a real schedule and that any indefinite postponements would undermine public trust. The exchange underscored the delicate balance between political realism and institutional duty, with both sides watching for signals from European and international bodies as the dialogue progressed.
In the same vein, the discussion about who should eventually lead the Supreme Court’s first division and whether a non-elected figure might be installed was floated as a possibility. The idea was scrutinized for its democratic legitimacy, with concerns that replacing a long-standing leader through non-electoral means could undermine confidence in the governance of the judiciary.
Ultimately, the conversation reflected a broader strategic choice: whether to restart stalled processes, renew the CGPJ, and manage the long-running tension between appointment timing and political considerations. The participants acknowledged the risk of prolonging uncertainty, yet believed that a thoughtful, rule-based approach could still secure a credible resolution for the institutions involved.
APM President Maria Jesús del Barco
Lesmes addressed Maria Jesús del Barco, the president of the Judicial Professional Association, noting the call for resignation made during a meeting with the European Justice Commissioner in Madrid. The exchange highlighted the clash between expectations within the professional body and the political dynamic surrounding the CGPJ. The response from the association leader hinted at a broader debate about leadership and accountability in the judiciary.
The dialogue continued with the clarification that the association does not have a single president as a formal title, illustrating the often nuanced leadership structures within professional groups. Lesmes responded with a lighthearted remark, suggesting that the dialogue would certainly influence the morale of those involved. This moment reflected the complexity of leadership and the personal dimension of institutional governance in Spain’s judiciary.
The conservative flank voiced a clear preference for new leadership and suggested that longtime allies within the faction awaited the outcome with interest. The discussion also touched on an imagined possibility that a non-elected figure might assume a leadership role, a scenario viewed by some as a tactical move that could reset the state of affairs. The sense in the room was that any such shift would be contested, highlighting the tension between democratic legitimacy and strategic calculation in the governance process.
In sum, the narrative traced a volatile, high-stakes quest to renew Spain’s CGPJ and steer the judiciary toward renewed legitimacy. The conversations pointed toward an eventual reorganization that would balance legitimacy, timing, and political realities, with several participants acknowledging that the path forward would require careful negotiation and respect for constitutional boundaries.