How far can the Con Court go?

Can a Constitutional Court justice afford to express a personal,negative opinion on the Constitution, when it is his orher sworn duty to uphold that very Constitution? Chief JusticePavel Rychetský used Czech TV's OVM debate show yesterdayto sharply criticize the new constitutional amendment on directpresidential elections. (One of his deputies, Eliška Wagnerová,also criticized the amendment recently in Respekt, but shedid it before the law was passed.) When Rychetský appearedon OVM last May, he said that the role of the Court is to overseeParliament. "One can hardly expect the ConstitutionalCourt not to be a political body when its main, basic functionis to oversee a political body," he said. "This means setting thebounds and saying, 'You cannot go any further than this.'"Rychetský's performance yesterday is a conundrum. Could hepossibly be signalling that the Court might strike down theamendment as an excess of Parliament? Or is he merely testingthe bounds of how far a Constitutional Court justice can go?