"...the Supreme Constitutional Court, after discussing Mr. Morsi's order, refused to reconsider its decision, saying it was final and binding, news agencies reported, and paving the way for a possible showdown between the new president and the judiciary.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Morsi attended a military graduation ceremony and was shown on television sitting next to Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the leader of the military council. The two men chatted with one another, and Mr. Morsi smiled as he watched a karate demonstration by the cadets." NY Times
---------------------------------
Mursi (the MB leadership) intends to abolish the present court system after they obtain the Islamic constitution that they want, so the opinion of the Supreme Constitutional Court means nothing to them.
Here we have a photo of Bill Burns, the most senior person in the State Department who really knows the Middle East. He is performing the "kowtow" for Mursi. Pictures are more valuable than words. pl
For someone with no constitutionally defined power, Mursi sure knows how to make waves.
The military will have to decide whether to negotiate some important-sounding but ceremonial role for him or slap him down. What Mursi seems to be doing now is to try and maximize his negotiating position given its inherent weakness.
More important is the example Mursi sets. Already, King Abdullah of Jordan has apparently decided to bring the MB in from the cold, along with Hamas.
Posted by: JohnH | 09 July 2012 at 10:35 AM
what else would you deem Burns good for?
Posted by: jonst | 09 July 2012 at 10:53 AM
Colonel,
Actually, it is William Burns, the Deputy Secretary of State.
Posted by: oofda | 09 July 2012 at 11:31 AM
oofda
My bad. It is Bill Burns. I know this one, not Nick. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 July 2012 at 12:48 PM
Col: I wonder if Mursi will tell the Parliament to continue to meet in some concert hall or some other venue and treat them like a "board of advisers."
Maybe they can take the "tennis court oath."
Posted by: Matthew | 09 July 2012 at 02:13 PM
If I can read lips, Burns may be saying "If the General's know what is good for them, they will do your bidding or no more military type aid to them"
Posted by: Peter | 09 July 2012 at 07:36 PM
peter
He may be saying that, but the the generals may be saying that if we let the MB consolidate power we are dead meat. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 09 July 2012 at 08:56 PM
The article says the guards are not there to prevent members of Parliament from entering. Perhaps they'll just be there to prevent them from exiting?
Posted by: Fred | 09 July 2012 at 09:17 PM
... and one can build on that and say that the interest in survival is a motivation that military aid can't buy.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 10 July 2012 at 12:53 AM
I am in total agreement! Sometimes I think our State Dept does not know who they are dealing with.
Posted by: Peter | 10 July 2012 at 02:13 PM
Do the commentors here truly find the NYT to be reliable? honest? without a foreign political agenda? I ask because I do not find it to have those qualities, and as such I do not accept it as a source of believable information regarding any foreign affairs.
This is not to imply that I find it a worthwhile domestic source of reliable information either; just that I find its foreign reportage to be completely untrustworthy.
Posted by: CK | 10 July 2012 at 04:31 PM
Of course it has an agenda. Completely untrustworthy? Probably not but it is also allot better than many such outlets in the US.
Posted by: Fred | 10 July 2012 at 09:23 PM