Supporters of the current Spanish administration argue that the government is simply exercising its democratic right to engage in public debate regarding the performance of state institutions. From this perspective, the judiciary is not an untouchable entity, and when legal decisions appear to be politically motivated or inconsistent, elected officials have a duty to voice the concerns of the citizens they represent. They argue that calling out perceived bias in the courts is a form of transparency rather than an attempt to exert undue pressure.
Proponents of this view point out that the executive branch has a responsibility to ensure that the justice system functions fairly and efficiently. They contend that the criticism directed at certain judges is not an attack on the institution itself, but a critique of specific actions that they believe undermine the democratic will. By engaging in this discourse, the government is attempting to hold the judiciary accountable to the same standards of public scrutiny as any other branch of government.
Furthermore, supporters emphasize that the legal challenges faced by figures like former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz are being used by political opponents to destabilize the government. They argue that the international attention from the European Union is being fueled by a distorted narrative presented by the opposition. In their view, the government is merely defending its legitimacy against a legal system that they believe has become overly politicized against the current administration.
Ultimately, this perspective holds that a healthy democracy requires a robust exchange of views between the branches of government. They maintain that the government's actions are consistent with the norms of a modern European state, where political debate is encouraged and where no institution should be shielded from legitimate criticism. They argue that the focus should remain on the substance of the legal issues rather than on the tone of the political debate.