I missed this at the time, but last month after Thaksin’s verdict Shawn Crispin wrote in Asia Times:
That decision was famously preceded by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s nationally televised address to the panel’s judges, in which he urged them to rule justly and not on the basis of whether their decision would be popular. Academics have noted the so-called move towards the “judicialization” of Thai politics is viewed as necessary in certain royal circles to wean the country off its over-reliance on the 80-year-old Bhumibol to mediate political and social conflicts. 
The progressive 1997 constitution was in several ways designed, including through the establishment of new checking and balancing independent institutions, to move the country in that rule-by-law direction. Critics, including the military coupmakers and their backers in the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protest group, contend that Thaksin purposefully undermined the independence of those fledgling institutions, through politicized appointments and other interventions, to vest more power with the executive. 
Over a decade later, the grinding and increasingly violent political conflict playing out on Thailand’s streets is a testament to the failure of the now abrogated 1997 charter’s envisaged reforms. The military-drafted 2007 charter put stronger checks on the executive branch, but simultaneously and controversially on several fronts moved the country in a less-democratic direction. 
Even with Tuesday’s landmark ruling against Thaksin, it is not clear yet that the abrupt shift towards royally endorsed judicial activism will achieve the balance needed to maintain peace and order after the highly revered Bhumibol’s eventual passing. 
BP: The shift of power to the judiciary who have decided to exempt themselves from criticism is alarming.