" as the highest legal authority in Bolivia (directly elected) confirmed. That's not disputable."
I'm fairly certain your understanding of this bit is relegated to simplified summaries.
as I said earlier, it was a stacked court.
Bolivia's Jenine Áñez finally allows election effectively at gunpoint, loses and is going to jail
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
I'm fairly certain your understanding of this bit is relegated to simplified summaries.
as I said earlier, it was a stacked court.
Its been endlessly pointed out that the Plurinational Constitutional Court is popularly elected. You're endlessly repeating a falsehood. Even the link you gave yourself makes no claim of "stacking".as I said earlier, it was a stacked court.
You know what court has members solely appointed by party-political figures, fitting the description of a "stacked court"? The Supreme Court of the United States. Does this mean you believe the rulings of SCOTUS are not legal, as well?
SCOTUS is the result of the sacred document written by slaveholders. That makes it dignified and serious, like the dollar.
You don’t get it. It is a stacked court. A court stacked by the people. That is incredibly unfair if your ideas are absurdly unpopular.
Well, firstly, it is disputable, but even if you want to pretend it isn't, that's not what I said.
I said he broke his own laws. Term limits are in the Bolivian constitution, enacted in 2009, formulated by MAS, led by Morales. He put that limit into effect, and then violated it at the first possible opportunity.
You want to call that good and legal, you're deluding yourself.
Oh so is alcohol still illegal in America? It's an amendment after all.
He put that limit into effect. Then the law was changed, via an existing legal mechanism. So when he ran, there was no limit in legal effect. You cannot break a law that's no longer on the books.
That's not even disputed by his opponents. Not disputed by Anez or the OAS. Its only "disputed" by online armchair observers without any particular knowledge of the law.
What is the tyranny of the masses? what is judicial impartiality? what is checks and balances? I've showed before the problems the judiciary faces in Bolivia thanks to Morales. You just don't care because your team is winning. I've actually been there and talked to people and when they mentioned him it wasn't very fondly. Then again this is the same group of people that when confronted about the refugees fleeing from Venezuela they all default to "lol they are capitalist pigs they deserve it" and I actually met with 3 different Venezuelan refugees and none of them were even close to being "bourgeoise". The reality of the situation is divorced from your world view and it disturbs me deeply
There are a significant number of people in any Latin American country that will be mad that a left wing leader took their slaves away or instituted a minimum wage or whatever.
No, you haven't: you've just endlessly repeated the line about it being a "stacked court", and ignored the fact it's popularly elected.
Evo Morales! And it was legal to do so.
You can say you don't like the outcome or disagree with the ruling, but yes, the President has the legal ability to take an issue to the highest court in the land. I believe the US President is currently considering something along those lines at the moment (though, of course, the SCOTUS is actually a stacked court, being composed entirely of political appointees rather than elected members).
In the UK how do you appoint judges?
The judges were voted based on party affiliation and the very ability to be nominated as a judge was tied to your party affiliation (quotas regarding affiliation). There are several mentions of the non-independence of the judiciary in the country after Morales. I could say that it wasn't independent earlier as well. In essence I truly understand his argument that judicial independence is a "capitalist" thing. The judiciary come from a bourgeoise class of professionals, usually they are not the first generation of law-practitioners. This influences their opinions and decision-making. You refuse to understand this and try to hide this under a thin veneer of democracy while it's clearly a tussle for political power.
They're appointed by an independent Commission, the members of which are non-political solicitors, barristers, etc.
Honestly, I think this is easily preferable to popularly electing judges. The Bolivian model is deeply flawed.
Well, there certainly weren't quotas, because candidates were required not to be formally affiliated with any political party. But yes, true independence from the existing party dynamics is unlikely with a popular vote involved. As I say, it's a deeply flawed system, with a vote allowing it to be dragged into partisan disputes.
Still, it's more independent than the godawful US system, in which appointments are directly made by the ruling party with no input from any independent bodies or the population. But as far as I know, nobody here is arguing that the rulings of the SCOTUS aren't legal.
I'm... not refusing to understand that. That's not our dispute. You appear to be arguing that because you don't like the method of appointment, that renders the rulings not legally binding. That's just ridiculous.
I wasn't arguing it wasn't legally binding. I was arguing it was a joke, a farce, an obvious miscarriage of justice. Inside Bolivia it was somehow perfectly legal - because they rewrote the laws to make it legal.
Go search this thread with the search function. I had never once said that it was illegal. I am saying now that if you can think independently and not blindly support the proponents of your ideology you'd realize that this whole thing was a fucking joke and could have been avoided had he didn't try to force through another presidential term. I opposed him and justified the coup because what he did was wrong. If I justify the coup, does that mean that I justify every thing that it did? I justify the killing or the crackdowns or whatnot? No. I said before, and I'll say again, Morales is a fucking joke and you shouldn't sully your reputation by supporting him.
Tstorm originally stated that he broke the law, which was what I was responding to. And that was specifically what you replied to.
Of course, "rewriting the law" to allow the government to do stuff happens all the time in every country throughout the world.
"Sully my reputation", okay. Tone it down.
So, you disagree with overriding the referendum result, presumably because it overrides the choice of the people. OK, sure, I don't think he should have done that either. But you're happy to support overthrowing the government those people elected, and installing... a government from a party that not only didn't win the election, but didn't even come second or third?
That's so, so much more egregiously undemocratic.
I'd have supported forcing Morales to resign, nothing more.
He already forced through an extra-term (when he rewrote the constitution). This was the second time he was doing shenanigans of the same nature.
Not what I said, but is what you were responding to, sure.
The position went to the next person in line who didn't resign with Morales, who took the position with the full intention of holding new elections. If you forced out the president, and then stuck the second most popular party in charge without regard to the designated order of succession, that would be an undeniable coup. That would be far, far worse. I really don't understand why people are behaving as though this whole thing was a plan ordered by Anez. Maybe there's evidence of that somewhere, but certainly haven't seen anything giving her particular responsibility for Morales' departure, she just happened to be the highest ranking member that wasn't MAS.
Moving on...
As has already been pointed numerous times, several of the people between Morales and Anez in the line of succession reported threats and intense pressure to step down. And those "fully intended" new elections didn't seem very forthcoming.
I don't tend to trust unelected governments when they say they'll get around to an election when they feel like it (and then begin the delays, and the massacres).
If you believe the rule of succession was ethically followed, then yes, the fact that she was from some minor party wouldn't be very meaningful. But I don't believe that. The line of succession was bypassed through threats of violence, by the admission of those who stepped down. It didn't just fall to her; she was installed.
Alright, and if the Bolivian people felt the same way, they had the chance to express it at the general election.
Why is it acceptable to override the result of the general election, but not the referendum? Particularly when the general election was won by such a larger margin.