In a normal country, the Constitutional Court would have invalidated the Referendum, on the day the results were handed over, regardless of who would have challenged the number of citizens taken into consideration for measuring the quorum, the Constitutional Court is restricted to judging the data it is provided by the legal authorities; it does not have the rights to ask the Government for updates or additional research, especially since it knows that in that regard, the Government is in a conflict of interest, (thus it never protested when the Court was giving it "orders", which would have been unimaginable behavior from the government under any other circumstances); but at any rate, "justice is blind", it makes rulings based on "the evidence gathering procedure", and that procedure was done once the results had been delivered.

Tergiversating the decision has made the rules relative, bringing the moral hazard full circle, meaning that the Constitutional Court may also:

1. invalidate the Referendum;

2. validate it;

3. postpone the decision again;

4. ask for the Referendum to be held again;

5. avoid making a clear ruling, passing the buck with the Parliament.

1. About 20% odds for each of the options, even though, like I said, the invalidation of the referendum should be quoted at 100%. But, even so, the invalidation of the referendum does not mean that Băsescu would return to Cotroceni. Because the Parliament will delay meeting "to determine the steps to follow" (I don't think there are any deadlines imposed by the law) and thus the interim president will stay longer in the Cotroceni palace.

2. But, if Antonescu says that the odds of "Băsescu returning to Cotroceni are feeble" and the delegated minister of the Administration and Internal Affairs Radu Stroe says that "the new data centralization, of the local adm