- 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.
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
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
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.
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.