blue News readers on the women's retirement age ruling "A disgrace for our country" - "Wise and right"

Switzerland will not vote again on the retirement age for women. This was decided yesterday by the Federal Court in Lausanne. This is how blue News readers react to the ruling.

The Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne ruled yesterday: The vote on the increased retirement age for women is valid and should not be repeated.

Opinions are divided not only among politicians, but also among blue News readers. User Dumeufle9 writes: "This Federal Court ruling was actually to be expected from the outset." Tierwohl24 comments: "There is no other term for this procedure than FRAUD. Who can you take seriously? A disgrace for our country."

"Are we still a constitutional state?"

StefKus writes: "Since when does a court make a judgment based on the possible consequences of a legal claim? Are we still a constitutional state or are our judges lackeys of our state government? For us mere mortals, ignorance is no defense against punishment. The fact that the BUND protects each other fits into the overall picture. That's why I'd rather vote for Pinocchio than a party politician ever again."

User Noordic has a different opinion: "Even if it is unpopular with certain people, I think the Federal Court's ruling is wise and correct. It also provides certainty that the hurdle for challenging voting results will remain very high in the future. This strengthens democracy. Furthermore, the AHV is already facing enough major financial challenges in the longer term."

The people "mostly" do the right thing

User Nempunteu65 criticizes Swiss politicians: "Why do so many politicians today struggle with democratic decisions? 'Most of the time' the people make the right decisions. The only worrying thing is that a few federal judges have to judge a vote of millions of people and could declare it invalid. It is already written in our Federal Constitution: 'equal rights for men and women'."

But who is to blame for the fact that the vote has reached the Federal Supreme Court? Argus49 writes: "If the vote had had to be repeated, the question of who was responsible would undoubtedly have been justified. The officials who miscalculated the AHV prospects? Probably. But would they have borne the cost of a new vote? Hardly."