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.

  • @GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2•5 days 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
        -1•5 days 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•5 days 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
            -1•5 days 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?