644

Mexico will amend its constitution this weekend to require all judges to be elected (apnews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

126 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 101 points 3 months ago

Speedrunning populism, let's see how that goes. Cartels electing judges is my bet.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 69 points 3 months ago

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?

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 7 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 20 points 3 months ago

like a corrupted judge, who can let his buddies off free

US "judge" Cannon enters the chat.

[-] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I just like the idea of a corrupt judge, in the US, getting primaried by a working class person. Obviously, with the correct counsil, if elected.

I want to believe those are the kinds of people this legislation is designed to support, in a perfect system.

If not, its just more fluff to jam up and backlog the beurocracy.

How it will play out is another story. Maybe Mexico will try it out.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 75 points 3 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?

[-] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] Belgdore@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

US Supreme Court Justices are not elected. They make a lot of political decisions beyond just upholding the status quo. There are a lot of US states that have judicial elections and they don’t have major crises because of it.

[-] slickgoat@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Don't kid yourself, the US Supreme Court is balls deep in politics. The situation where political parties can essentially buy a Supreme Court result for life is a disgraceful situation. That's why the US is in such a terrible mess. Justice is not served, politics is.

[-] Belgdore@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago

My point is precisely that the US Supreme Court is embroiled in politics. The notion that being appointed somehow insulates the justices from politics is absurd.

Elections at least create some semblance of accountability to the voters.

load more comments (25 replies)

[-] Tja@programming.dev 7 points 3 months ago

Almost a lot? So a big few?

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 3 months ago

Just look at the US Supreme Court's recent rulings and tell me that's a healthy judicial system. I'd rather have the ability to vote for a judge, but more importantly, we need to have a system in place that can more easily impeach them should their actions not reflect the will of the people.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

No matter what your system is it all comes down to the real key of democracy. That is society having a respect for democracy and the rule of law. If your Society doesn't have an innate desire for a just system you're not going to have a justice system no matter what system you use. It's not a tangible thing it's something that has to be created over time. Elected judges or appointed judges, there's deep flaws to both concepts.

[-] Lesrid@lemm.ee 26 points 3 months ago

What many democracies around the world are missing is greater recallability in offices. Citizens need to be able to easily oust people nonviolently.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 15 points 3 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.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] slickgoat@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

I disagree. All that does is turn judges into politicians. The US Supreme court isn't elected, but selected by politicians. Keep politics as far as you possibly can from people with an interest in gaming the system.

[-] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

And look what has happened to the US supreme court in the last few years... That seems to completely disagree with your point. It has been stacked with very partisan judges by politicians looking to game the system

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] young_broccoli@fedia.io 7 points 3 months ago

The thing is that the candidates for judges will be chosen by commitees from "the 3 powers" which are, basically, under controll of MORENA.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 46 points 3 months ago

Is it worse than having judges appointed for life?

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 73 points 3 months ago

Probably. You're now going to have judges raising money to campaign. And the average on-the-street voter knows fuck-all about what qualifies somebody to be a judge, so they're unlikely to pick better candidates.

[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago

What qualifies someone to be a judge is simply redefined to be what is popular. A judge should therefore no longer follow the law, but make the ruling most in line with what is popular. Under a voting system that is the sole qualifier.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Stern@lemmy.world 48 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Mereo@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The way US politics has gone the last 30 years, the advisory board would be politicized and polarized within 3 election cycles, no matter how the board itself is selected.

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Thats a problem with political appointments by the president not life terms.

[-] Stern@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Federal appointments still have to be approved, and even with SCOTUS they can still get rejected, e.g. Bork

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination

Thomas was close to rejection too owing to Anita Hill's testimony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

You can have judges appointed and term limit them. It's not an either/or.

[-] Jaderick@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

IIRC before these changes take affect, Mexico’s President appoints (at least supreme) court judges who have tenure for 15 years. The ruling party is arguing for these changes to combat corruption. Rumor is that the Mexican legal system is corrupt af, and I haven’t seen any alternatives proposed by the opposition in (English) coverage of the protests, but we’ll see how electing judges goes I guess.

[-] paf0@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

I would prefer appointments approved by Congress with both term limits and a maximum age. Judges should have minimal political incentive.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Wouldn't that just make it partisan? The only way any system of appointing judges can work is if its all done in good faith. Considering the corruption in Mexico you seem fucked either way. Not that America is any better.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 months ago

Depends on who will elect them and how the voting process works.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 38 points 3 months ago

This doesn't seem like a great idea, if you ask me

[-] zik@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] febra@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Having them be appointed by politicians isn't making much sense either. It's not a secret that many judges have their own political affiliations since they often get appointed with support from different political factions (see the supreme court in the US). In theory, you're right. In practice, it doesn't always work that way.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 months ago

It is interesting how easily the article passes off 'stacking courts' as more of a danger with elections than appointments.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 21 points 3 months ago

So, the judges will have to campaign on the issues? Doesn't seem like the best idea if you want neutral and unbiased judges.

[-] lorty@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago

Like the unbiased judges appointed by politicians?

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

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?

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago

I feel like there should be a first line of defense, so you don't get charismatic idiots. Like some hard test and only the top 20 % scorers can campaign.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] demizerone@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] super_user_do@feddit.it 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I don't get the social dynamic that would eventually bring the party to elect only the candidates loyal to the party. For real, here in Italy we've got a great issue of nepotism and this reform would probably bring fresh air to a corrupt and inefficient elite

Almost surely not everyone will be able to candidate themselves, some kind of degree or qualitification must be a minimum requrement

load more comments

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024

644 points (99.4% liked)

World News

39358 readers

3004 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.