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.

  • slickgoat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    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.

      • slickgoat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        Sure, then breathing is political. So is farting.

        However, certain things are actively political and dangerous to people.

        • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlEnglish
          4·
          3 months ago

          If making a given ruling is political, it stands to reason that a contrary ruling would also be political. It’s not like slavery is political and abolition is apolitical, it’s just that one has a positive character and one has a negative character (in the mathematical sense).

          Some things are dangerous to the people and political, some things are beneficial to the people and political. We should support a system that encourages judges to do promote the latter.

          • slickgoat@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            That’s hard to argue against, and I’m not going to try. It is the nature of human discourse to navigate social constructs in order to do the least damage.

            It is also self-evident that the US justice system is a burning dumpster fire. It is suffering from a set of horrific issues that it largely created by the simple fact that it allows political parties to select SCOTUS judges who then directly deliver political decisions.

            The only other option that keeps regularly coming up is electing judges, which is equally problematic in that popular contests soon get co-opted by politicians and dark money. Once again, how does this serve justice?

            A third option that actually and demonstratively works around the world is to have a bipartisan system where a professional judicial panel creates a short list of suitable and qualified candidates from which the government makes a selection. Dark money nor naked political favouritism gets a look in and no decisions can be bought.

            Now, some Americans will come at me saying that such a selection will only work in theory. But that is wrong. It works in practise right around the world in democratic countries. It is utterly non-controversial. That it is very possible to pick judges in a bipartisan way for the benefit of justice and the people.

            Or, just keep doing it your own way and everything is sweet and dandy. I’m a foreigner, so what do I know?

            • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlEnglish
              2·
              3 months ago

              It seems to me like all it’s accomplishing is another layer of abstraction rather than a real mechanistic distinction, but I’ve seen what “bipartisan” action looks like in the US, and the billions in arms given to Israel are a decent start. Republicans and Democrats absolutely have the capacity to collaborate and, when they do, it’s monstrous.

              Voting at least gives the people a chance to resist the machinations of the bipartisan consensus and get progressives installed.

              • slickgoat@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                3 months ago

                Voting also brings people like Trump into play. How do you think that will play out with Palestine should he get in again?

                Look, it does actually work in Western Europe, the UK, Australia and NZ. All this talk that it can’t work is plainly wrong.

                What is impossible to get around is American exceptionalism. People just can’t conceive that other systems might be better. Fine. I apologise for suggesting otherwise. Enjoy.

                • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  How do you think that will play out with Palestine should he get in again?

                  Liberals keeps saying that Trump will do genocide x 2, but they have no evidence, nor any indication of how.

                  Look, it does actually work in Western Europe, the UK, Australia and NZ. All this talk that it can’t work is plainly wrong.

                  Your courts are mostly more professional than America’s but I don’t find that to be a compelling argument when every country you listed is a reactionary shithole, Australia especially. NZ is the only one that I’d give kind of a pass to there.

                  • slickgoat@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    3 months ago

                    You must have missed the bit where Trump constantly says that he’s the best friend Israel ever had. I mean constantly.

                    I’m sure that won’t translate to arms supply. Possibly fruit baskets?