Swiss Voters Ban Face Coverings

[Kooky]

Wrong, that was also the result of a free election (with only men).

ciao

- viole

My apologies, I made a mistake. The canton in question was not Graubünden, but Appenzell, and the decision was passed down in 1991, not the 1970s.

Appenzell Innerrhoden - Wikipedia

Women's suffrage in Switzerland - Wikipedia

 

[viole]

My apologies, I made a mistake. The canton in question was not Graubünden, but Appenzell, and the decision was passed down in 1991, not the 1970s.

Appenzell Innerrhoden - Wikipedia

Women's suffrage in Switzerland - Wikipedia

Yes, passed down after the people voted for it. No top down decision. Only enforcement of what the VOLK decided.

like we will do soon with the Cantons that are too shy to fine face coverings.

ciao

- viole

 

[Kooky]

Yes, passed down after the people voted for it.

No, passed down after a Supreme Court decision.

People voted for universal suffrage at the federal level, but at the cantonal level, the men of Appenzell repeatedly rejected universal suffrage until a court decision enforced it at the cantonal level.

 

[Left Coast]

Is this an exhaustive list?
Not even a single case where a member of the Supreme Court got kicked out?
And only eight cases for federal judges, in general, in over 200 years?
Do you sincerely think this system is working?

Yes, I do. Which member of the Supreme Court do you believe should be impeached, and for what offense?

The problem is not the disagreement. There are legitimate disagreements when the words are dubious, for instance, or when the technological advances renders a really old legal paradigm ill suited. The problem happens when a few people decide they have the power to expand the meaning of the words to achieve what they want. I can give you another example: Buckley v. Valeo. There is absolutely no way free speech was intended to cover political spending. Such wild interpretations are like geocentrism, where the proponents picks the evidence they want to fit their agenda while ignoring everything else.

Although I agree with you that political spending should not be covered by free speech, that does not indicate that the rationale for it was invented from nothing in legal precedent. You are creating a straw man and knocking it down. Have you read Buckley v. Valeo?

Moreover, assuming the rationale was invented out of thin air and had no legal rationale...what does that prove? That we should have no Supreme Court? This is like claiming that sporting events should have no refs because refs sometimes make bad calls. You understand why that's absurd, right?

I am not saying that words are devoid of a commonly understood meaning. Not at all. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that those in power can render the words in a constitution devoid of meaning.

While they "can," just as I "can" claim you are a Muslim jihadist based on nothing, that is not what generally happens. The public, incidentally, can also render the words in a constitution devoid of meaning, if you want to put every issue of constitutional interpretation up to a popular vote. The hypothetical problem doesn't go away.

How many times have you watched it happening?

How many times have I seen the Legislature impeach a SCOTUS justice? Never. Which one(s) should've been, and what impeachable offense did they commit?

I can tell you how it works in Brazil in a quite simplified way: Whenever a petition of some kind reaches the Supreme Court, there is one justice that is initially responsible for it,. This judge is callled the 'relator'. The relator is the first one that gets to vote, in a manner that his opinion is known to others beforehand. When the other justices get their chance to vote, their votes, as in the dozen or so pages they get to submit explaing their reasoning, are already ready. Although sometimes a change of mind happens, it is not that common though, and tends not to make much of a difference. If one of them gets to say something completely crazy, that none of the others agree with, they just suck it up or complain. And that's it. This is not equivalent to holding someone accountable.

How is that we would "hold them accountable," in your view?

What would I be making up specifically?

You may go back and reread my posts if you like. I've called it out on multiple occasions in this conversation in point by point fashion.

How do I know that you're not faking your expressed opinions here?

I was going to group this part of your post with the next one, but since the opportunity presents itself:
Have you ever attended the law school yourself?
Just to clarify: If you say you haven't, that's alright. I just want to know whether you are speaking from experience or from some preconceived notion.

None of the above. It's neither from personal experience, nor from a preconceived notion. I know multiple people personally who have gone to law school and are now lawyers. Would you like me to ring one of them and share your views that SCOTUS Justices just make up judicial opinions out of thin air and constitutions are useless? Because I'll bet money that they'll laugh out loud.

Often? How often?
Do you mean often enough to the point their bias wouldn't be known merely by looking at their decisions as a whole?

See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/

Please read this: Supreme Court Justices Become Less Impartial and More Ideological When Casting the Swing Vote

Here is an excerpt:

"The team analyzed votes by Supreme Court justices on more than 8,500 cases since World War II. They found that when a justice casts the deciding vote, his or her personal beliefs suddenly matter far more.

“The effect of a justice’s ideology on how he or she votes essentially doubles when the vote is pivotal,” Spenkuch says."

Focusing on narrow, sexy decisions like the ones on abortion obscures the larger trend, which is that the Court values consensus and comes to it frequently, despite their political differences and individual biases.

By the way, pointing out how things are doesn't entail that is how things should be. We can do better than that.

How?

The judiciary branch is needed, but it doesn't need to have power to the extent it has.

What does that mean? Judges have to have the power to authoritatively interpret and apply the law. That's what they do.

Often enough rules and laws are designed as guidelines. This gives power to whoever is going to apply those rules and laws, since they are intentionally made vague. But that's not even the issue I have been pointing out. The issue is that even when they are not vague, a judge can pretend they are, particularly in the supreme court. I can present to you more cases of judicial activism if you wish.

As I could present vastly more cases of judicial non-activism. Yes, judges make bad calls. The SCOTUS has made bad calls. All of that is immaterial to whether we should vote on more things by popular vote. The public also makes bad calls (see Proposition 8 in my state of California). And judges will still be needed to authoritatively adjudicate legal disputes that arise from laws passed by popular vote.

 

[Koldo]

Given that speech ever since the creation of printing has
required spending money, it makes perfect sense that
we have the right to spend money on political speech.
No money generally equals silence in the public eye.
Ref....
Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia

Even in dissent.....
"Concededly, neither the limitations on contributions nor those on expenditures directly or indirectly purport to control the content of political speech by candidates or by their supporters or detractors. What the Act regulates is giving and spending money, acts that have First Amendment significance not because they are themselves communicative with respect to the qualifications of the candidate, but because money may be used to defray the expenses of speaking or otherwise communicating about the merits or demerits of federal candidates for election....."

Here is the first ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice how it states freedom of speech and of press.
If freedom of press is a form of freedom of speech, it is unnecessary to mention the former. If it was mentioned not because it is necessary but rather to exemplify and speak in no uncertain terms the proper way to do it would be something like: "or abridging the freedom of speech, particularly freedom of the press;".

Now, the reason I am saying this is to establish that the ammendment makes a distinction between speech and press, even though in principle they shouldn't be distinct concepts. The freedom of speech should entail the freedom of press. But since they are treated as distinct this means that not everything that revolves around speech is protected by this ammendment. Therefore, even if spending money is necessary to achieve some form of speech, this is not protected by the ammendment.

The current ruling though was quite convenient to rich supporters, so it should come to no surprise why it was decided that way...

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is the first ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice how it states freedom of speech and of press.
If freedom of press is a form of freedom of speech, it is unnecessary to mention the former. If it was mentioned not because it is necessary but rather to exemplify and speak in no uncertain terms the proper way to do it would be something like: "or abridging the freedom of speech, particularly freedom of the press;".

Now, the reason I am saying this is to establish that the ammendment makes a distinction between speech and press, even though in principle they shouldn't be distinct concepts. The freedom of speech should entail the freedom of press. But since they are treated as distinct this means that not everything that revolves around speech is protected by this ammendment. Therefore, even if spending money is necessary to achieve some form of speech, this is not protected by the ammendment.

The current ruling though was quite convenient to rich supporters, so it should come to no surprise why it was decided that way...

Access to the press very often requires remuneration.
To deny the latter would be to curtail the former.

 

[viole]

No, passed down after a Supreme Court decision.

People voted for universal suffrage at the federal level, but at the cantonal level, the men of Appenzell repeatedly rejected universal suffrage until a court decision enforced it at the cantonal level.

Of course, since it was a constitutional change. Same thing will happen with the face covering. Several "liberal" cantons will refuse to enforce it. In that case, they will also be forced. Why? because that is the will of the people that changed the constitution to which everybody must submit.

My point is that the court cannot do anything, if the constitution is not changed. And that changes all the time, either because the government changes it. and the Volk agrees, or because the Volk overrides the government.

Bottom line: it is always the people that decides, and rebellious cantons will have to submit to the will of the people.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kooky]

Of course, since it was a constitutional change. Same thing will happen with the face covering. Several "liberal" cantons will refuse to enforce it. In that case, they will also be forced. Why? because that is the will of the people that changed the constitution to which everybody must submit.

My point is that the court cannot do anything, if the constitution is not changed. And that changes all the time, either because the government changes it. and the Volk agrees, or because the Volk overrides the government.

Bottom line: it is always the people that decides, and rebellious cantons will have to submit to the will of the people.

Ciao

- viole

According to the articles in the original post, only 51.2% voted Yes. That's just barely more than half of those people who bothered to show up in the first place, out of 75% of those adult residents who are actually allowed to vote. Once again, we see in your understanding of Swiss democracy the spirit of Athenian "democracy" i.e. the domination of the majority by a genetic and economic minority: Even of the pureblooded Swiss, only slightly more than half are considered part of your "people", of the Volk that is allowed to dictate to everyone else how they are allowed to dress, act, and live.

So indeed, as in any oligarchy, the dominant minority is ready to enforce its will on the majority, by force if necessary.
The ethos of Athenian oligarchic, genetic "democracy" is still alive in the Switzerland of today.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I do. Which member of the Supreme Court do you believe should be impeached, and for what offense?

How many times have I seen the Legislature impeach a SCOTUS justice? Never. Which one(s) should've been, and what impeachable offense did they commit?

Subversion of the constitution.
Considering my former example: Blackmun, Douglas, Powell, Burger, Brennan, Stewart and Marshall, at the very least, should have been kicked out.

Although I agree with you that political spending should not be covered by free speech, that does not indicate that the rationale for it was invented from nothing in legal precedent. You are creating a straw man and knocking it down. Have you read Buckley v. Valeo?

Moreover, assuming the rationale was invented out of thin air and had no legal rationale...what does that prove? That we should have no Supreme Court? This is like claiming that sporting events should have no refs because refs sometimes make bad calls. You understand why that's absurd, right?

I am not saying the rationale was created out of thin air. At least not in the sense you are using this expression. As I have said before, it is like poe's law.

I am also not saying there should be no refs either. I have already stated the importance of the judiciary branch. The problem happens when the refs get to have a lot of freedom to interpret the rules to the point that regardless of how he decides he can get away with it, thus allowing him to benefit whoever he wants.

While they "can," just as I "can" claim you are a Muslim jihadist based on nothing, that is not what generally happens. The public, incidentally, can also render the words in a constitution devoid of meaning, if you want to put every issue of constitutional interpretation up to a popular vote. The hypothetical problem doesn't go away.

I wouldn't want the ordinary citizens to be judges per se. What I want is ordinary citizens acting more like legislators, but with a constitution that has no immutable clauses. What the ordinary citizens would be able to judge is whether any given law is constitutional or not.

How is that we would "hold them accountable," in your view?

By kicking them out when they act like kings.

You may go back and reread my posts if you like. I've called it out on multiple occasions in this conversation in point by point fashion.

How do I know that you're not faking your expressed opinions here?

What would be the benefit?

None of the above. It's neither from personal experience, nor from a preconceived notion. I know multiple people personally who have gone to law school and are now lawyers. Would you like me to ring one of them and share your views that SCOTUS Justices just make up judicial opinions out of thin air and constitutions are useless? Because I'll bet money that they'll laugh out loud.

It would be quite interesting if I could get in touch with a colleague in the USA myself. I am afraid I would have a really hard time to express myself in english given that some terms can't be properly translated in english, and my knowledge over your country's terminology is quite small. If you do talk to them, ask what they think of judicial activism and what they think of Lassalle.

More to the point, you were close to the mark but not quite there: What we learn in the law school is not how to interpret the laws (and the constitution) per se, but rather how they are interpreted by the ones in power and influential figures.

See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/

I don't know what you would expect. Did you expect conservatives and liberals to disagree on everything?

Focusing on narrow, sexy decisions like the ones on abortion obscures the larger trend, which is that the Court values consensus and comes to it frequently, despite their political differences and individual biases.

Have you read the article I linked?
Can you explain why "The researchers found that, when casting a pivotal vote, liberal justices are more likely to vote liberally while conservatives are more likely to vote conservatively, compared to when those same judges cast a non-pivotal vote."?

What does that mean? Judges have to have the power to authoritatively interpret and apply the law. That's what they do.

It means that they shouldn't be able to create a new law all by themselves.

As I could present vastly more cases of judicial non-activism. Yes, judges make bad calls. The SCOTUS has made bad calls. All of that is immaterial to whether we should vote on more things by popular vote. The public also makes bad calls (see Proposition 8 in my state of California). And judges will still be needed to authoritatively adjudicate legal disputes that arise from laws passed by popular vote.

This is not about making bad calls. Everyone makes bad calls. It is about having direct influence over the laws rather than being at the hand of kings.

 

[viole]

According to the articles in the original post, only 51.2% voted Yes. That's just barely more than half of those people who bothered to show up in the first place, out of 75% of those adult residents who are actually allowed to vote. Once again, we see in your understanding of Swiss democracy the spirit of Athenian "democracy" i.e. the domination of the majority by a genetic and economic minority: Even of the pureblooded Swiss, only slightly more than half are considered part of your "people", of the Volk that is allowed to dictate to everyone else how they are allowed to dress, act, and live.

So indeed, as in any oligarchy, the dominant minority is ready to enforce its will on the majority, by force if necessary.
The ethos of Athenian oligarchic, genetic "democracy" is still alive in the Switzerland of today.

Well, I can say the same with USA forcing Biden to the people, since that was more or less the same in terms of win margin. Or worse, Trump to the people when the majority did not vote for him in 2016.

I am really not sure what your point is. Since that still represented the majority. That is the idea of democracy, you know, you do not declare winner the minority if the difference was small, or if some people preferred not to vote or did not care. They lost, and that's it.

And what genetic and economic minority? I think you should come to visit, and check yourself the oppression that the majority of people suffers in Switzerland under the rule of very few genetically and economically fit oligarchs. Life here is becoming unbearable for the vast majority, because of that oppressive oligarchy. It is a true mystery why so many people are nevertheless trying to come here to live under such inhumane conditions. LOL.

I think you have a problem with democracy, when the majority votes for things that you consider suboptimal, heaven forbid.. In other words, you have a problem with democracy, period.

I am not right wing, but this syndrome is very typical of some liberals: they, for some reason, believe to be the sole owners of universal objective morality, and are shocked when people show to think otherwise.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

"The people," although "the people" is defined differently depending which system we're talking about. It could be direct democracy, or representative democracy.

Why don't you think sex in public should be legal? What about nudity?

Well, even if I agreed, I think nobody would complain if sex in public is kept banned. Why not? Why are some people outraged that we ban burkas, while happily living in a place that bans nudity and sex in the supermarket?

I didn't claim you "can't" ban what you like. Of course you can. You did. The question is whether you should, on what basis or rationale.

So no, I don't need to "come back back you" only when my ideal laws are passed. I can rationally criticize your ideas without my perfect utopia being in place. Just as you can.

Yes, and my perfect utopia includes banning symbols of oppression from public view, which I consider vastly more obscene than sex in the supermarket. Unless you arrogate yourself the right to define what counts as utopia and whatnot.

Of course they are. None of my criticism of your view was based on rights being written in the stars. My criticism was based on the observation that legal system that define and respect certain human rights, like bodily autonomy, are places where most people are happier and prefer to live. If you disagree then again - you're happy to be my slave, yes?

Well, then banning minarets, kosher/halal and burkas (which was already banned in several cantons) does not seem to affect that, considering that people are trying to come here all the time (that is why we are so strict with immigration/naturalization and such). Including Muslims etc. And we rate, I think 5th, in the place with highest level of happiness. Ergo, according to your inference, what we voted did not impinge on any fundamental rights.

This seems to be confirmed by the high quality of living and desirability of countries like France, Denmark, which had the ban already in place and decided by their representative democracies.

So, no biggy, really.

Similarly, laws, like banning what people wear, are also human constructs and subject to review. At any time. Which is what we're doing here.

Fine. Everything, including what you call fundamental rights, are also human constructs subject to the same review.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Left Coast]

Subversion of the constitution.
Considering my former example: Blackmun, Douglas, Powell, Burger, Brennan, Stewart and Marshall, at the very least, should have been kicked out.

What does "subversion of the Constitution" mean, and how did, say Justice Blackmun commit it? Interpreting the Constitution in a way you don't like is not grounds for impeachment. The Constitution says, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior."

I am not saying the rationale was created out of thin air. At least not in the sense you are using this expression. As I have said before, it is like poe's law.

And as I've said, your own arguments are similar.

I am also not saying there should be no refs either. I have already stated the importance of the judiciary branch. The problem happens when the refs get to have a lot of freedom to interpret the rules to the point that regardless of how he decides he can get away with it, thus allowing him to benefit whoever he wants.

We'd have to examine specific cases to determine what exactly you're talking about here. Perhaps this would be a good thread of its own, since we've gone quite far afield now from banning face coverings in Switzerland.

I wouldn't want the ordinary citizens to be judges per se. What I want is ordinary citizens acting more like legislators, but with a constitution that has no immutable clauses. What the ordinary citizens would be able to judge is whether any given law is constitutional or not.

The Constitution has no immutable clauses as it stands now. It can be and has been amended numerous times.

In terms of the public voting on the constitutionality of laws, that would be a mess, and there's no reason to think the public would be any less biased than legal experts who literally study and apply the law for a living. In fact there's reason to believe they'd be more so, quite obviously.
What legal system today operates the way you're advocating?

By kicking them out when they act like kings.

Show me an example of that and I'm happy to discuss it.

What would be the benefit?

Oh heavens, who could say? Your own amusement, perhaps. People do weird things on the Internet.

More to the point, you were close to the mark but not quite there: What we learn in the law school is not how to interpret the laws (and the constitution) per se, but rather how they are interpreted by the ones in power and influential figures.

By "we," do you mean you've been to law school? Many academic disciplines incorporate curriculum on the history of the discipline and important figures in said history who influenced the shape of the discipline up to modern day. In law this is particularly relevant due to the importance of precedent.

I don't know what you would expect. Did you expect conservatives and liberals to disagree on everything?

Definitely not. That's my entire point. Did you expect them to agree on everything? The whole premise you're arguing here is that Justices are basically just partisan shills who routinely make up judicial opinions ad hoc from nothing in order to justify their political biases. That is, once again, a painfully silly and inaccurate caricature of what actually happens.

Have you read the article I linked?
Can you explain why "The researchers found that, when casting a pivotal vote, liberal justices are more likely to vote liberally while conservatives are more likely to vote conservatively, compared to when those same judges cast a non-pivotal vote."?

I presume that's the case because judges have bias to some degree. Liberal judges tend to render liberal decisions, conservative judges tend to render conservative ones. Do you think popular vote decisions would have less of such tendencies? Untrained laypeople with no legal expertise whatsoever rendering judgments on legal cases that have potential political implications? Lol. Cmon now.

It means that they shouldn't be able to create a new law all by themselves.

And for the 3rd time, they don't. Laws are made by legislatures and voters. This is basic.

This is not about making bad calls. Everyone makes bad calls. It is about having direct influence over the laws rather than being at the hand of kings.

This very much seems like it's about making bad calls. You don't like some of the decisions SCOTUS has handed down because you don't think the majority decision was supported Constitutionally. Welcome to the Supreme Court. Happens all the time. Again, if you actually read some SCOTUS decisions, it might help you understand things better.

We've gone around a few times and it feels like I'm just repeating myself. You can have the last word.

 

[Kooky]

Well, I can say the same with USA forcing Biden to the people, since that was more or less the same in terms of win margin. Or worse, Trump to the people when the majority did not vote for him in 2016.

Please don't assume that I hold any of these examples as the gold standard of liberty and democracy, because I absolutely don't.

I am really not sure what your point is. Since that still represented the majority. That is the idea of democracy, you know, you do not declare winner the minority if the difference was small, or if some people preferred not to vote or did not care. They lost, and that's it. [...]

I already laid out my point. No oligarchy will give away its power voluntarily, so it is of not surprise that Switzerland (or more accurately, the privileged few who actually control Swiss politics) holds onto its exclusionary ethos based on beliefs of genetic superiority. This has little to do with democracy or liberty, but everything with the enforcement of minority dominance.

On a different note, I would say that it speaks volumes of how people view the lives of others when they consider politics a game to "win" or "lose", rather than a process hopefully bringing us closer towards everyone living their best and freest lives in the fairest society we can manage.

[...]
I am not right wing, but this syndrome is very typical of some liberals: they, for some reason, believe to be the sole owners of universal objective morality, and are shocked when people show to think otherwise.

Please don't call me a liberal. If you absolutely must label my position instead of engaging with the points I raised in the proper fashion, you may call me a left-wing libertarian, or a libertarian socialist if you will.

Ciao

Au revoir, goodbye, auf Wiedersehen!

 

[viole]

I already laid out my point. No oligarchy will give away its power voluntarily, so it is of not surprise that Switzerland (or more accurately, the privileged few who actually control Swiss politics) holds onto its exclusionary ethos based on beliefs of genetic superiority. This has little to do with democracy or liberty, but everything with the enforcement of minority dominance.

On a different note, I would say that it speaks volumes of how people view the lives of others when they consider politics a game to "win" or "lose", rather than a process hopefully bringing us closer towards everyone living their best and freest lives in the fairest society we can manage.

This is total nonsense when 80% of the people living here have direct democratic power to vote on basically anything.
How can you call that an oligarchy? It is exactly the opposite thereof: direct decision power to most people.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, the voice of the people would vote to bring back hanging; lower taxes; support separatist policies, etc.

Remember 'The Voice of the People' is actually a vote of prople averaging an IQ less than 100, controlled by popularist politicians

Indeed.

People tend to forget that the point of a constitutional democracy is NOT to give power to the majority, but rather to protect minorities