And there has been strong reactions to the court's decision. Turkish journalist Taha Ak-yol, in an interview with CNN, said the decision by the court is a violation of current law. /// The Constitutional Court does not have the authority to review procedural rules including amendments on substantive grounds. Nor can it bring out new rules apart from article 148 of the constitution, which means the court has no jurisdiction to overrule the amendment. If you handle the characteristics of the republic very indirectly and vaguely it becomes almost impossible for the parliament to execute the legislation as well as amendments. What should be considered is that the top court has seized the legislative authority of the parliament by its indirect interpretation to the article 2 of the constitution. Ergun Ozbudun, a professor of the constitutional law said, parliament's authority has been violated. There is no sentence in any place in the constitution forbidding amendments explicitly or implicitly. The constitutional court has overruled its constitutional principles. The constitutional court has exercised the authority which is forbidden to the tribune, which may be called usurping the authority. Ongoing discussions will bring hotly contested debates on the constitution which may damage the expediency of the court. Ozbudun, says this decree of the court and the expected closure case should be treated separately. However, Ozbudun maintains that the same judges will also decide on the closure case of the ruling party, thus putting the court into question. Ozbudun went on to say he would not be surprised if the court has already decided on the closure of the AK party. Meanwhile, the leader of the main opposition party is pleased with the decision of the court. Deniz Baykal, leader of the Republican People's Party which had originally appealed the amendments to the court, said, "This will have important legal and political repercussions." CHP Deputy Chairman Onur Oymen said the party was "pleased" with the court's decision.