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.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • slickgoat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Belgdore@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • slickgoat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            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?

            • Belgdore@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              3 months ago

              If you believe anyone is above politics I have a bridge to sell you.

              • slickgoat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

                • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  That’s just because your conservatives haven’t discovered not confirming justices. We used to have bipartisan consensus on judicial picks as well. Give it time as the other capitalist countries continue to decay and get more fascist. Relying on these moral codes and gentleman’s agreements doesn’t work once a party learns to disrupt the system.

                  Obama literally picked a judge the opposition said was the only one they would pick and then they still didn’t. You can’t remove politics from these systems.

                  • slickgoat@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Your reply assumes that the rest of the world must follow the US example. That’s not necessarily true, although there is a bit of flirtation going on here and there with fascist populism, Western countries with Western values have managed to put a choke hold on the worst.

                    Also, loading the SCOTUS benches with partisan picks is not exactly a new thing. FDR was doing it for the Dems in the 1930s.

    • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.