Partly Facetious: studied delay in approving judges' appointments

"The Chief Justice says courts are not empowered to change even a comma in the Constitution."
"That's very true. If only the rest of us would take our constitutional obligations just as diligently..."
"He says that Parliament is the proper forum for settling political issues."
"Ah, there I disagree."
"Parliament is not the proper forum you believe?"
"Perhaps in the old and tried democracy. But in our new and improved democracy it doesn't appear to be the proper forum."
"So what is the proper forum? GHQ?"
"Not even that I am afraid. Decisions about the Constitution are taken in the President's office."
"Yes, but that is only during times when we have referendumed presidents."
"When else have we needed the courts to interpret the Constitution for us?"
"Remember Bhutto, the architect of the 1973 Constitution! He changed his own Constitution. "Then there was Nawaz Sharif - he added clauses and..."
"But these two had the mandak if you will. I mean if any one person gets such a mandak then they should be allowed to change the Constitution."
"Oh, I see and you reckon Musharraf didn't have the mandak!"
"No."
"Then what about the results of the referendum?"
"Don't give me a hard time. Let's drop it. What else did the Chief Justice say?"
"That there was a delay in filling posts of judges in the top court and that he himself certainly did not delay in recommending the names. The decision, he added, had to be taken by the President."
"Constitutionally?"
"Yep."
"It's a merry go round, right?"
"Indeed. But what surprises me is that the President has never delayed anything in his life, even decisions that would have been better delayed have been taken promptly. So why is he so reluctant to appoint judges?"
"When you figure out the answer everything else will be made clear."
"Why don't you tell me?"
"Nope. That's not in the national interest."