Mexico will amend its constitution this weekend to require all judges to be elected
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.
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.
US "judge" Cannon enters the chat.
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.
I can say that unqualified judges generally cause the corruption more than the qualified ones.
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?
Electing judges is stupid. Judges should be neutral and uphold the current laws. It is up to the elected parties / president / groups to make sure all Judges are neutral. If you can vote on Judges that mean they have a political power that has nothing to do with their job.
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.
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.
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.
I've made this point elsewhere. In Australia the Chief justices are appointed by the government based on a shortlist presented by the legal establishment. They are preeminently qualified and are above politics. Both sides of the political spectrum are fine with this system and it is not gamed.
It is utterly non-controversial and the Australian people respect the institution. Tell me again how it is absurd to remove politics from a judicial system?
The same was said about the SCOTUS until recently, where it's become very obvious it is political and has a ton of power to enact their political goals.
I'm afraid that how the US chooses SCOTUS is vastly different from ike countries, and that's how you end up with the US having 'unique' judicial situations.
https://theconversation.com/unlike-us-europe-picks-top-judges-with-bipartisan-approval-to-create-ideologically-balanced-high-courts-146550
That's just because your conservatives haven't discovered not confirming justices. We used to have bipartisan consensus on judicial picks as well. Give it time as the other capitalist countries continue to decay and get more fascist. Relying on these moral codes and gentleman's agreements doesn't work once a party learns to disrupt the system.
Obama literally picked a judge the opposition said was the only one they would pick and then they still didn't. You can't remove politics from these systems.
Your reply assumes that the rest of the world must follow the US example. That's not necessarily true, although there is a bit of flirtation going on here and there with fascist populism, Western countries with Western values have managed to put a choke hold on the worst.
Also, loading the SCOTUS benches with partisan picks is not exactly a new thing. FDR was doing it for the Dems in the 1930s.
If you believe anyone is above politics I have a bridge to sell you.
Well, there are degrees, aren't there? Some judicial systems ban individual reproductive rights, allow corporations to be people and give criminal immunity to presidents, and some don't.
Not doing that is also political
Sure, then breathing is political. So is farting.
However, certain things are actively political and dangerous to people.
If making a given ruling is political, it stands to reason that a contrary ruling would also be political. It's not like slavery is political and abolition is apolitical, it's just that one has a positive character and one has a negative character (in the mathematical sense).
Some things are dangerous to the people and political, some things are beneficial to the people and political. We should support a system that encourages judges to do promote the latter.
That's hard to argue against, and I'm not going to try. It is the nature of human discourse to navigate social constructs in order to do the least damage.
It is also self-evident that the US justice system is a burning dumpster fire. It is suffering from a set of horrific issues that it largely created by the simple fact that it allows political parties to select SCOTUS judges who then directly deliver political decisions.
The only other option that keeps regularly coming up is electing judges, which is equally problematic in that popular contests soon get co-opted by politicians and dark money. Once again, how does this serve justice?
A third option that actually and demonstratively works around the world is to have a bipartisan system where a professional judicial panel creates a short list of suitable and qualified candidates from which the government makes a selection. Dark money nor naked political favouritism gets a look in and no decisions can be bought.
Now, some Americans will come at me saying that such a selection will only work in theory. But that is wrong. It works in practise right around the world in democratic countries. It is utterly non-controversial. That it is very possible to pick judges in a bipartisan way for the benefit of justice and the people.
Or, just keep doing it your own way and everything is sweet and dandy. I'm a foreigner, so what do I know?
Almost a lot? So a big few?
Typo fixed. Pedantry is fun isn’t it.?
It's my favorite.
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.
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.
What many democracies around the world are missing is greater recallability in offices. Citizens need to be able to easily oust people nonviolently.
Short terms of office should have the same effect. If you want to stay in power you should have fight for it.
Instead of doing the job, you’re perpetually running for reelection. Like the American politicians do every two years.
Elected Judges still get their jobs done. They have clerks who do a lot of their drafting and grunt work in the office.
For large elections, there are staffers and volunteers who do a lot of the electioneering. For small elections, campaign events only occur on weekends and at other times when court is not in session.
Terrible idea
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.
When has the court ever ruled in opposition to political power?
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.
Ye-es, but nobody in the West said so. Maybe if in that one moment things went differently, Russia would be at least a very flawed democracy today.
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.
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
The key word is "stacked". Who stacked them? Political parties did.
My point is intact. Have professional judicial bodies create curated shortlist of suitability qualified candidates.
I think the difficulties that people have in appreciating this system is that they have been captured by the experience of their own failed system. To say that it wouldn't work means that you have to fundamentally ignore all the places where is is used successfully.
The thing is that the candidates for judges will be chosen by commitees from "the 3 powers" which are, basically, under controll of MORENA.
You could say the same of any public service role.
The voting public doesn't have the requisite experience and knowledge to make good decisions about candidates for executive or judicial roles.
Government is a different case. You're selecting a representative. Someone to represent you in parliament. The skills required to do so are in theory less significant. It's just a responsible person who will raise their hand at the right time.
Is it worse than having judges appointed for life?
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.
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.
Which is what the legislature is for.
Yikes. That's an insanely misguided worldview.
Do you know what was real popular for centuries? Fucking slavery.
Popularity, like legality, is independent of morality. We should be striving to better understand how to improve the well-being of everyone, and use that information to legislate what is moral based on that ultimate goal. Popularity should not figure into this at all.
Slavery looks a lot more popular when you don't let the slaves vote. If the slaves could vote -- i.e. if there was a greater degree of democracy -- there would surely be no slavery. It was the repression of the political power of a large segment of the population that enabled slavery.
Surely, if we educate people on class consciousness, they will generally act in alignment with the common interest, right prole? Certainly it's not a better solution to dictate morality to them unilaterally through some technocratic institution (that's rather like what the aristocracy was), because we have no particular way of ensuring that they will act in the common interest -- which is not especially their interest -- unlike the common people, for whom the common interest is their interest.
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.
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.
Thats a problem with political appointments by the president not life terms.
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
But the vast majority of the time they are approved, and the nomination begins with politicians. Contrast this to the way the UK does it where the appointments come from the senior judges with politicians then approving or rejecting the proposed new member.
Hehehe, Bork
My son is also named Bork.
My condolences to him
Bork was nothing compared to Harriet Miers. Probably the least qualified person ever nominated to SCOUTS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination
And yet very possibly not the worst person nominated for that specific vacancy.
Oh nowhere near the worst. Just the least qualified.
You can have judges appointed and term limit them. It's not an either/or.
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.
I would prefer appointments approved by Congress with both term limits and a maximum age. Judges should have minimal political incentive.
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.
I think it's going to be partisan regardless. Unfortunately, from this article, it's not clear to me the length of their term. If they constantly have to seek reelection then I believe it would be even more partisan than being appointed for a set term.
Depends on who will elect them and how the voting process works.
Limited term appointments is the best tool you can have to get rid of cartel-friendly judges.
Until the next one steps into place like a cartel vending machine.
This doesn't seem like a great idea, if you ask me
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.
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.
I think it depends on your legal system. Appointed judges that can overturn legislation are a problem, but if the judges don't have that power and all they're doing is running a courtroom then a judge representative of the community would be an asset.
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.
Why would you want a judge protecting bad laws?
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?
That’s only if politicians select them
It is interesting how easily the article passes off 'stacking courts' as more of a danger with elections than appointments.
Yeah, there's no way you can stack an elected court!
Nearly all media is owned by conservative white men that willingly court fascism if it means lower taxes.
So, the judges will have to campaign on the issues? Doesn't seem like the best idea if you want neutral and unbiased judges.
Like the unbiased judges appointed by politicians?
There's already a system in place to hold politicians accountable.
How well had that worked for the US President's and their appointed Supreme Court justices which have been getting bribed in public without consequences? Unless you mean the guillotine...
You can impeach all of them, including Supreme Court justices, within the framework of the law that has been set by elected representatives.
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 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's no such thing
Maybe, maybe not. But blatantly giving up on neutrality by electing judges based on their political views does not help promote justice.
Between these two options:
indulging in the delusion of neutral judges and letting the elite pick the ones who do the best job of pretending to be neutral while representing their interests
discarding the illusion of neutral judges and picking ones who openly state (and ideally have a record) that they will seek to pursue and enact justice as both they and the better part of the population interpret it
I think one of these is clearly superior for "promoting justice". Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. I already stated why.
But you yourself admitted that there may be no such thing as "neutral," "apolitical" justices. If there aren't, what good does pretending do?
Where did I "admit" that? I said maybe, maybe not. Campaigning on the issues will lock judges into their biases. It will never work well.
I said
Which is what you said. I characterized your statement correctly.
What does this mean? Everyone has biases, I don't see how campaigning matters for that. Do you mean, perhaps, that it prevents judges from changing for branding purposes? Because that objection has two serious problems: 1) what the public wants will change over time and 2) people should do what they're elected to, so what does it matter if someone keeps getting elected for maintaining the same popular platform?
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.
Why? We don't really have that for Presidents, which are just as, if not more, dangerous.
Yeah, and look how that turned out
Like how many of your rulings in the past 10 years have been overturned
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.
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
Hey it's like me and my older brother. I avoided all sorts of trouble by watching him make dumb mistakes and learning from them.
So... The American system (mostly)?
No, judges are mostly appointed in the US
::: spoiler Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Associated Press:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://apnews.com/article/mexico-economy-remittances-lopez-obrador-sheinbaum-12b6b34283c65248313275e6496f1fd7
https://apnews.com/article/president-andres-manuel-lopez-obrador-judicial-overhaul-democracy-protests-7c13b20ef398264378dcdf1971a9a5d2
https://apnews.com/article/mexico-judicial-overhaul-senate-vote-9f2eb58bf52e13759d8d28d52c24d2de ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support