3 ms·

They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea". They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written

They didn't ban recommendations because they thought it was a "good idea". They banned it to have reality comply with Brazilian electoral law which is written so that every candidate has the same amount of airtime. It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist, but to make sure all laws are correctly enforced. Remembering this fact isn't optional. Said differently, arguments about such decisions should revolve around whether the law says what the courts say it does or whether it was applied correctly—not whether the law should exist.

Zenul_Abidin 2mo ago
To make reality comply with a specific government's jurisdiction is such an absurd proposition, that people would've laughed at someone 100 years ago if they suggested this as a practical option.
- airstrike 2mo ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, so it's hard to agree someone would have laughed at it. It is almost a perfect definition of sovereignty—to shape reality such that it fits what the state deems appropriate. This by no means imply it's perfectly effective, but that's besides the point. We're debating what the state ought to do, not whether it succeeds.
matheusmoreira 2mo ago
> It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist The brazilian judiciary legislates on a daily basis.
- maleldil 2mo ago
  Funny how someone implicitly reveals his political affiliation with a short sentence.
  - matheusmoreira 2mo ago
    > Instead of applying the law, the supreme court decided to legislate... Actual quote from an actual laywer I knew, one of my professors, around 10 years ago. My legal medicine professor, who was a doctor and a cop, was onto something as well: > Doctors think they're gods, judges know. Here's another interesting thing an actual lawyer once told me to my face: > Judges = gods in this country, and supreme court judges even more so. This is nothing new, it's been going on for decades and decades. Anyone who deals with legal matters can see it. Start observing and you too will see the pattern of judicial activism. Every single occurrence of it is a small coup against the representatives we actually elected.

Zenul_Abidin 2mo ago

To make reality comply with a specific government's jurisdiction is such an absurd proposition, that people would've laughed at someone 100 years ago if they suggested this as a practical option.

airstrike 2mo ago
I'm not sure what you mean, so it's hard to agree someone would have laughed at it. It is almost a perfect definition of sovereignty—to shape reality such that it fits what the state deems appropriate. This by no means imply it's perfectly effective, but that's besides the point. We're debating what the state ought to do, not whether it succeeds.

matheusmoreira 2mo ago

> It is not the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law should or shouldn't exist The brazilian judiciary legislates on a daily basis.

maleldil 2mo ago
Funny how someone implicitly reveals his political affiliation with a short sentence.
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  > Instead of applying the law, the supreme court decided to legislate... Actual quote from an actual laywer I knew, one of my professors, around 10 years ago. My legal medicine professor, who was a doctor and a cop, was onto something as well: > Doctors think they're gods, judges know. Here's another interesting thing an actual lawyer once told me to my face: > Judges = gods in this country, and supreme court judges even more so. This is nothing new, it's been going on for decades and decades. Anyone who deals with legal matters can see it. Start observing and you too will see the pattern of judicial activism. Every single occurrence of it is a small coup against the representatives we actually elected.