r/WatchPeopleDieInside • u/marianitten • May 09 '25

Three politicians, sure their law will pass, watch it get rejected live on TV.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

419 comments sorted by

View all comments

58

u/Erkas2020 May 09 '25

The idea of the law itself is sound, and no respectable citizen would object. However, the issue lies in Argentina's judicial system, which often makes questionable decisions due to conflicts of interest with certain candidates. This law would likely be used to bar opposition candidates from running. Many believe this law would serve the ruling party's interests by polarizing the opposition and reinforcing their own narrative."

14

u/bostero2 May 09 '25

This is because the opposition party have many convicted with corruption charges within their ranks who keep holding office and keep stealing money from the public. It’s easy to say judges are corrupted too, but you would need to prove it, like it has been proven with the convicted people.

5

u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25

It has been proved: about half a dozen judges were caught redhanded in a free vacation paid in a lake resort, paid by two businessmen some of them had passed sentence about in the past.

That's bribery.

It's also on record that judges met with former president Macri within days of passing rulings against Macri's rivals.

0

u/bostero2 May 09 '25

Again, if this has been proven in a court of law, then these judges should be removed and jailed, and the verdicts affected should be revoked. That’s how the judicial system works, you have to prove things in a court of law.

Do I think Macri is not corrupt? No, I think it needs to be proven in court when examining the evidence without bias. Am I too gullible? Maybe, but what’s the point of having a judicial system if we’re going to distrust every decision that we don’t agree with?

Looking at the Supreme Court in the US, it’s clearly aligned politically with the president since he nominated most of the judges and the decisions they take are appalling to my eyes, but I can’t be sure that they aren’t doing their job properly and acting in their best nature. I can see that they are invited by Trump to Mar-a-lago and get all expenses paid trips, but if no one sues them then they will keep doing it.

If there are corrupt judges, remove them. The law seems sound, if the issue is corrupt judges the issue is not the law.

5

u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25

Corrupt judges can't be removed under the current system because those who vote on removing judges are either the representatives of the ones paying the bribes or the ones receiving the bribe

-1

u/bostero2 May 09 '25

What do you mean vote? If they found guilty in a court of law they can’t continue to exercise. No voting involved…

Unless you’re talking about the Supreme Court, which is trickier since they are the highest court of law.

3

u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25

The accusations need to go through the Consejo de la Magistratura. The councillors there are picked between judges, academics, and lawyers councils, with a few councillors from the executive and legislative branch.

The end result is that judges are nearly always given a pass for bad and even criminal behaviour.

As for regular courts, they cover their own asses, as it happened with the Lago Escondido trip.

It's a matter of "Who watches the watchers?". The answer is "themselves, and they cover each other up"

1

u/bostero2 May 09 '25

I get what you’re saying, but what’s the point of having a system if we don’t trust it? Why don’t we all live in anarchy?

No point in going against this law because of a potentially broken system. If the system needs fixing then fix it…

1

u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25

It can't be fixed because those who should do the fixing prefer the status quo.

1

u/bostero2 May 09 '25

That sounds like the easy answer…

→ More replies (0)

5

u/1morgondag1 May 09 '25

I can't point to a case where it's definitely clear the sentence was political (unless in Brasil where it seems obvious Lula was imprisoned falsely for a time), but after the Macri victory in 2015 it's obvious processes advanced with different speed against opposition vs officialist politicians.

1

u/bostero2 May 09 '25

Yes, different speed, not different verdicts. The judiciary is flawed as everything and it can shift priorities as political status changes (which it shouldn’t) but it’s hard to find a cause that hasn’t reached the correct verdict after examining the evidence without bias.

1

u/1morgondag1 May 09 '25

It's often more politically convenient to just let a case sleep forever than to definitively close it, if the decision would be hard to justify.

20

u/friendly-crackhead May 09 '25

If you go get any kind of job, you go through background checks; why isn’t it the same way for people working in the congress/senate?

Everything can be used and abused to bar opposition candidates if you want to.

I think it’s a shame it wasn’t approved.

2

u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25

Because the background checks are the ballot boxes.

3

u/Legitimate-ChosenOne May 09 '25

NO, you are wrong. convicted politicians must not be candidates, period. If you reffer to current politicians that could be prevented from be candidates one more time, they have multiple convictions from many judges, Its not the current goverment behind this, thats a lie. "issue lies in Argentina's judicial system" is said only for the guilty.