Just a moment...
apnews.com

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.

  • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          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.