The two members who went against the tide are the youngest in court, whose membership lasts until the mandatory retirement age of 67. Both were appointed by late President Turgut Özal, who handpicked them and fought for them for their conservative worldview. They are the most industrious members of the court, heavy-duty but easygoing -- they always find ways for compromise whenever the need arises.

All eyes are on the Constitutional Court, headed by Haşim Kılıç, right now. Kılıç is one of the most conservative members of the court and after serving two terms as deputy president he became its president last October. It is almost divine design that the court under his leadership has become the key to deciding on critical issues that he had previously dissented on the court's ruling over. We know from his dissenting arguments in decisions that he was against the headscarf ban and did everything to convince other members of the court that party closure was not the way to solve political problems.

I can easily surmise how Kılıç is uneasy about his position as president of the court and how he would have liked to see both cases handled outside its jurisdiction.

I am almost sure he pinned his hopes on President Abdullah Gül's veto of two constitutional amendments for the headscarf issue and the rapporteur's negative report on party closure. Gül didn't veto the constitutional amendments, and the rapporteur of the Constitutional Court didn't obliterate the path for party closure on their behalf. Even calls by some NGOs for all political forces to step back didn't create any result such that would have enabled the two critical issues to be solved without the Constitutional Court's interference.

It is the duty of the court presided over by Kılıç to decide the fate of the country.

Judicially there is no ground for enforcing the headscarf ban. It is up to Parliament to adopt any changes in the Constitution and the Constitutional Court has no authority over constitutional amendments. If the court turns down the indictment on judicial grounds, very few would argue the otherwise reasonably within the legal framework.

The same goes for the demand for the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) closure. The chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals submitted his indictment so unexpectedly that his arguments aren't enough to convince even a single soul. Those who support his demand do so without using any legal reasoning, knowing that this is a political case and political expediency requires the AK Party's closure.

The Constitutional Court cannot operate outside judicial boundaries, and should not do so, especially under Kılıç's leadership. If the court accepts a mandate to rule on constitutional amendments, this would be the first time Kılıç's court stretches its legal authority. If it accepts the opening of a case against a party that has been governing the country for the last six years and has renewed its political mandate with an overwhelming election victory, this would also be a first.

Constitutional courts are semi-political bodies and they reflect their members' inclinations in decisions. Their members are appointed or chosen by supposedly non-political authorities, but how you can find a non-political seat in a democratic country? In the US the judges are appointed by the president and approved by Congress. In our case though, judges are approved by the president after their nomination by different state bodies. Most members in our Constitutional Court were appointed by Ahmet Necdet Sezer, our previous president.

Our Constitutional Court is famous for party closure and its "no way" attitude toward everything related to state security. In the olden times, when there was a case in front of the Constitutional Court related to party closure, the arguments raised by the chief prosecutor were all sound and non-argumentative. I myself criticized every single party closure decision on the grounds of democratic precedent, but I always knew that the parties in question gave the court more than enough pretext to reach that decision.

Not now.

Whenever the headscarf issue came before the Constitutional Court, we had always some unfortunate developments manipulating minds into thinking that Turkey was under fundamentalist threat. Starting with 1990, several prominent public figures have lost their lives in shady circumstances, but always before and after the headscarf issue began dominating political debates. The two famous Constitutional Court decisions on the headscarf ban were made in a brutal atmosphere of political assassinations.

Not now.

The Constitutional Court today is free of any legal or political pressures that would otherwise blur its decisions. When they decide to accept or reject cases, only the court members themselves are to take credit or blame for it.