- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
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.
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.
like a corrupted judge, who can let his buddies off free
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?
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Judges without elections have a pretty free hand to be racist or misogynist pieces of trash.
So do judges that oppose these. Meanwhile in a racist or misogynist electorate judges will be compelled to cater to those “values”
deleted by creator
I’m not sure what you could mean here. What qualifies someone to hold any political office is their conduct and their rulings and how those are interpreted is by what the people believe is fair.
A judgeship is not a “political office.” Yes yes yes, I know - I hear you clicking the “reply” button, but it’s not supposed to be. And by making them directly voted on they they definitely will be.
I’m going to preface this with “none of these problems are solved by either options but some things are better in some situations than in others.” There is no silver bullet.
But - I want you to imagine a scenario: A judge wants to be on the supreme court.
Scenario 1: Big Evil Co. starts up a PAC that spends billions on getting that judge elected and they win. Big Evil Co. has business before the court and threatens to dissolve the PAC when the judge comes up for election again. Maybe PACs are illegal in Mexico - I don’t know, but they can find some way to fund campaigns since they’re often expensive ordeals.
Scenario 2: An elected official who was chosen by the people (sometimes the good people, sometimes “those other guys”) nominates somebody for office. They are chosen by other elected officials. Now when Big Evil Co. comes before the court they don’t have many options. They can bribe or give gifts. But they can’t really effect whether that judge remains on the bench. And such actions are often deeply looked down upon or outright illegal.
I deleted my comment, not really in the mood to argue the many flaws of the judicial system today.
But it’s noteworthy that I don’t believe such a thing as “rule of law” is ever achievable without corruption and that there exist only varying degrees of corruption but more or less every judicial system on earth is corrupt to some extent. I made a much longer writeup responding to you, but again, I felt that I’d rather not spend my day arguing this.
Long and short, the only way the current system works is if you assume that all politicians are acting in good faith and that all voters have equal political power. Neither of these is true on a foundational level, and that is reflected in widespread corruption and manipulation of appointed judges.
I didn’t think we were “arguing” - just a discussion. You’re right that there is no such thing as “rule of law” without corruption. Or government without corruption. Or a fantasy soccer league without corruption. etc. All human things are corrupted by bad people.
The point is not to remove corruption completely, which isn’t possible, but to minimize it and make it less effective.
In Australia the legal establishment selects a shortlist of suitability qualified candidates to the government for our version of the Supreme Court (our High Court). The government makes a choice. In all cases both political parties generally are fine with the choice. Both sides occasionally gets the rough end of the pineapple in court decisions, but that’s the law, not political bias.
Watching what goes on the in US is a horror show. Heart goes out to you guys.
We have a strong “anti-expertise” streak going on at the moment, and it’s painful to watch. “Trust experts to select judges? What do they know?”
It’s a problem, and I have no idea what has led to it.
I hear you, but that system has worked well for us since federation in 1901. It’s not perfect, but what system is? At least we have never witnessed the absolute crazy judicial stuff that is an ongoing mess in the US.
Believe me, I’m not attacking the US in any way. The world needs America to succeed. America needs America to succeed, but every SCOTUS decision is crazy. Even political gerrymandering is permitted in the land of the free, according to your Supreme Court.
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.
Samuel Alito, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was nominated four days after her withdrawal and subsequently confirmed.
Oh nowhere near the worst. Just the least qualified.
deleted by creator
Huh? All federal judges in the US (Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges) are nominated.
Even at the state level, it’s a mix of election and nomination based on the vacancy.
My mistake. Sorry for that. I should have looked into it further.
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.
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?
That’s only if politicians select them
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.
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 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’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?
-
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
Or have you passed the law entrance exam. Judges in Texas are elected and they don’t even need to have passed the state bar in some counties
they don’t even need to have passed the state bar in some counties
WTF
deleted by creator
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
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Associated Press:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch 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
