- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
Mexico is poised to amend its constitution this weekend to require all judges to be elected as part of a judicial overhaul championed by the outgoing president but slammed by critics as a blow to the country’s rule of law.
The amendment passed Mexico’s Congress on Wednesday, and by Thursday it already had been ratified by the required majority of the country’s 32 state legislatures. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said he would sign and publish the constitutional change on Sunday.
Legal experts and international observers have said the move could endanger Mexico’s democracy by stacking courts with judges loyal to the ruling Morena party, which has a strong grip on both Congress and the presidency after big electoral wins in June.
You must log in or register to comment.
Having elected officials makes sense for politicians since their job is to represent the interests of the people but it’s terrible for other types of public office.
What do you want from a judge or a sheriff? Someone who’s experienced and competent. Who can best judge that? Would it be the hierarchy of their peers who they work with every day or would it be random members of the public who’ve barely even heard of them?
Edit: and no, I’m not suggesting political appointments. That’s also a recipe for disaster. Do it like Commonwealth countries: make the civil service independent of the political process and make appointments be part of the usual process of promotion.
What do you want from a judge or a sheriff?
You want someone who aligns with the legislature and President. If your courts are stacked with the opposition party and there’s no legal way to replace them, they become a judicial firewall against any legislative reform.
Not at all. The judges appointed by the opposition party, protect the laws made by the opposition party, when they were in government. This way the government can not just ignore those laws. So most countries have very long term limits for judges to deal with that. Hence a single government can not just stack the courts. Term limits are used, so no single government just happens to be able to appoint a lot more judges then usual. However even with the term limit being death, a court like the US supreme court has judges appointed by five different presidents for example.
The judges appointed by the opposition party, protect the laws made by the opposition party
Why would you want a judge protecting bad laws?
Hence a single government can not just stack the courts.
But a party that’s held power for decades can. Mexico spent nearly a century under a single party. You’ll find similar dynamics in Japan, Germany, Korea, the UK, China, Venezuela, Russia, Pakistan, Thailand…
Imagine a Venezuela election in which Maduro is replaced, but the Chavez/Maduro packed court simply rules the new government illegitimate and strikes down all their decisions. Do you just wait until all the Chaveismo judges retire/die? Or do you replace them?
Speedrunning populism, let’s see how that goes. Cartels electing judges is my bet.
If that’s the case then the Cartels already elect/make most of the politicians — whom select the judges — so there’s not really much of a difference, is there?
Yes there is. You need the entire country for national elections and there is one government from one parliament. You might have the same on state level, where interference is easier. But you need thousands of judges in thousands of districts. That will become very easy to interfere with.
But a corrupted muncipal parliament does not have the saem effect, like a corrupted judge, who can let his buddies off free, while imprisoning journalists and other critical dissidents against the cartels.
So, the judges will have to campaign on the issues? Doesn’t seem like the best idea if you want neutral and unbiased judges.
Do you want neutral judges or do you want judges that align with the popular view?
John Roberts spent his confirmation process convincing everyone he was a “neutral” balls and strikes judge. All his opinions are phrased to imply he is taking a rational and fact based approach to the law. Yet his decisions are all in favor of hard right positions.
Do you want a judge like that? Or do you want an “activist” judge that respects unions, defends abortion rights and voting rights, and curtails the power of private industry to subvert democracy?
I want judges who base their rulings on the law and not their political views. In theory, laws adjust to the popular view over time. Judges should not be part of that adjustment.
the law and not their political views
The law is a consequence of political viewpoints. The issue of Roe, for instance, is decided by the interpretation of a basket of Constitutional rights and privileges.
If laws weren’t up to ideological interpretation, we wouldn’t need judges or lawyers to begin with. They’d just be clerks administration filed paperwork with predetermined outcomes.
There seems to be something contradictory about the idea that letting people elect judges endangers democracy. If you don’t trust the people to elect judges, how can you trust them to elect the people who appoint judges?
Judges are not supposed to work for the majority. They are supposed to work for justice.
Justice in most cases means opposing political power (formal in this case).
Thus they should be selected in some way radically different from how political power is formed.
Sortition is one way, if you don’t want some entrenched faction reproducing itself. Would be better than US too. But still sortition from the pool of qualified people, that is, judges, and not just every random bloke who applies, of course.
Justice in most cases means opposing political power
When has the court ever ruled in opposition to political power?
Sortition is one way, if you don’t want some entrenched faction reproducing itself.
It isn’t as though you can’t corrupt a candidate after they take office. Look at Clarence Thomas.
Russian Supreme Court in 1993 when ruling that Yeltsin and the parliament should both resign and have new presidential and parliament elections. Yeltsin’s opposition agreed, Yeltsin said he’s the president and it’s democratic and legal that he decides everything and sent tanks.
Since the US was friendly with Yeltsin, this was considered business as usual.
In fairness, that was just a coup and regime change effectively at gunpoint.
Is it worse than having judges appointed for life?
No system is 100% resistant to shitters.
Life appointment was supposed to get judges to focus on issues and not make decisions with re-election in mind. Supreme court in the U.S. has shown us how that is going.
Not necessarily. In Canada, an independent advisory board reviews applications and provides a shortlist of candidates. The Prime Minister selects a nominee from this list. The nominee may participate in a public hearing before being officially appointed.
That is why it has not been a partisan issue so far.
It would be hilarious if America became the corpo plague lands and Mexico became the land of the living and Americans tried to cross into Mexico but the border wall Biden built was too impenetrable.
