643
submitted 3 weeks ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

Judges are not supposed to work for the majority. They are supposed to work for justice.

Justice in most cases means opposing political power (formal in this case).

Thus they should be selected in some way radically different from how political power is formed.

Sortition is one way, if you don't want some entrenched faction reproducing itself. Would be better than US too. But still sortition from the pool of qualified people, that is, judges, and not just every random bloke who applies, of course.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Justice in most cases means opposing political power

When has the court ever ruled in opposition to political power?

Sortition is one way, if you don’t want some entrenched faction reproducing itself.

It isn't as though you can't corrupt a candidate after they take office. Look at Clarence Thomas.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Russian Supreme Court in 1993 when ruling that Yeltsin and the parliament should both resign and have new presidential and parliament elections. Yeltsin's opposition agreed, Yeltsin said he's the president and it's democratic and legal that he decides everything and sent tanks.

Since the US was friendly with Yeltsin, this was considered business as usual.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

In fairness, that was just a coup and regime change effectively at gunpoint.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Ye-es, but nobody in the West said so. Maybe if in that one moment things went differently, Russia would be at least a very flawed democracy today.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
643 points (99.4% liked)

World News

38744 readers
2357 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS