• Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    In this instance we have a court comprised of judges that have been elected not by the people, but by Congress, with each judge having been elected up to ten years ago on one hand. On the other we have a recent referendum held among the people.

    They contradict one another, the people do not want to allow a third term for presidents, the court does.

    In my opinion there are two questions we should ask to determine which side is more likely to represent the will of the people:

    1. Which election took place more recently?
    2. Which election was more direct?

    The referendum was more recent than the election of most of the judges. The referendum was also held by the population directly, while the judges were appointed by congress.

    So in my opinion the result of the referendum should hold more weight than the judges’ decision.

    • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, how recent an election is isn’t the sole criteria. And as we’ve seen with Brexit, referendums aren’t an open-and-shut case for gauging the will of the people. To use another example, there have been multiple referendums in Crimea dating back to the 90s where Crimeans want to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, but I seriously doubt you’ll say that the annexation of Crimea by Russia was just Putin doing what the Crimean people wanted to be done since the 90s.