No one on this forum is saying that these things are lawful in Spain.
The more interesting and relevant question is whether it is right or wrong. The answer to that question is not automatically the same as lawful/unlawful. Even in a democracy.
Judges are not free to ignore the law just to appease complex political issues that have been fed for 20+ years, and can be backtracked to when Pujol came to power in Catalonia. So yes, judges did the right thing. Now it is up to the next president to manage the situation. But the news being discussed here is about politicians misusing funds to pursue their own agenda, and the penal consequences.
I won't claim you are doing this intentionally, but I find it strange that you care so much about being (in my opinion) rather pedantic in this way? Don't you think it's perfectly reasonable - as a bystander and not a member of the legal profession - to apply your imagination over what ought to be and not the semantics of what is? And to engage in a debate on that basis? Do you really think that whether or not judges are free to ignore precedent has any effect on how Catalans and Spaniards feel about this decision? Or am I missing the point of your comment?
Im not sure I follow you completely - particularly the precedent point, but ill try to explain myself:
There is a huge political context around this trial, and I believe that the fact that my parent post was arguing that we should discuss about morality, not just legality, is a way to introduce this context into the evaluation of the trial to assess - and condemn - the result. I think this is mis characterizing the quality of the trial itself. Plenty of people are decrying the trial result because they want independence, which to me is intellectually dishonest. I was thus arguing that the trial itself was right, responding to a direct ask to consider right vs wrong.
Neither are judges free to ignore the European Convention on Human Rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights when interpreting and applying those national laws. Also, wouldn't be the first time Spain got slapped by ECtHR because of sentences based on its outdated Criminal Code.
> Kind of like we look back today on 1987 and think what was that kerfuffle all about.
Between January and December 1987 the S&P500 had a positive return. [0] Yes, there was a big crash in the middle, but if you were not over leveraged and didn't look at your investments except in January/December, this was a year of very ordinary returns.
Certainly no biggy for long-term, pension fund type investments.
Sometimes just park your own view and genuinely ask questions and find out why she believes in them. Sometimes you can have an interesting conversation that way.
My previous roommates (a couple) were both big into xanax and crystals. They'd go on walks around the town, f'd up on scrips, and pick up rocks, bring them home and gush at me about what they found 'look at this ruby!" They'd proclaim (it was just a shard of broken beer bottle, I kid you not). By the end, the side of our house had accumulated a several hundred pound collection of (totally mundane and worthless) rocks. Their plan was to crack these rocks open by throwing them at the (concrete) ground, hoping to find crystals inside. In my opinion the benzos infantilized them, because they were not like that when they moved in, it was a downward spiral of a transition over two years.
This wasn't even thier worst quality. But I will always remember thier 'crystal' hobby.
The more interesting and relevant question is whether it is right or wrong. The answer to that question is not automatically the same as lawful/unlawful. Even in a democracy.