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.

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.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.eeEnglish
    265·
    2 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.mlEnglish
      111·
      2 months ago

      Like the unbiased judges appointed by politicians?

      • GiddyGap@lemm.eeEnglish
        35·
        2 months ago

        There’s already a system in place to hold politicians accountable.

        • WanderingVentra@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          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…

          • GiddyGap@lemm.eeEnglish
            11·
            2 months ago

            You can impeach all of them, including Supreme Court justices, within the framework of the law that has been set by elected representatives.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      104·
      2 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?

      • GiddyGap@lemm.eeEnglish
        53·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          81·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • GiddyGap@lemm.eeEnglish
            43·
            2 months ago

            Maybe, maybe not. But blatantly giving up on neutrality by electing judges based on their political views does not help promote justice.

            • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlEnglish
              53·
              2 months ago

              Between these two options:

              1. 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

              2. 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?

                • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  23·
                  2 months ago

                  But you yourself admitted that there may be no such thing as “neutral,” “apolitical” justices. If there aren’t, what good does pretending do?

                  • GiddyGap@lemm.eeEnglish
                    2·
                    2 months ago

                    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.