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.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    103·
    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
      43·
      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
        8·
        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
            52·
            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
                22·
                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.

                  • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlEnglish
                    22·
                    2 months ago

                    I said

                    admitted that there may be

                    Which is what you said. I characterized your statement correctly.

                    Campaigning on the issues will lock judges into their biases.

                    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?