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.

  • zik@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    Having elected officials makes sense for politicians since their job is to represent the interests of the people but it’s terrible for other types of public office.

    What do you want from a judge or a sheriff? Someone who’s experienced and competent. Who can best judge that? Would it be the hierarchy of their peers who they work with every day or would it be random members of the public who’ve barely even heard of them?

    • SSJMarx@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I think it depends on your legal system. Appointed judges that can overturn legislation are a problem, but if the judges don’t have that power and all they’re doing is running a courtroom then a judge representative of the community would be an asset.

    • febra@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Having them be appointed by politicians isn’t making much sense either. It’s not a secret that many judges have their own political affiliations since they often get appointed with support from different political factions (see the supreme court in the US). In theory, you’re right. In practice, it doesn’t always work that way.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      What do you want from a judge or a sheriff?

      You want someone who aligns with the legislature and President. If your courts are stacked with the opposition party and there’s no legal way to replace them, they become a judicial firewall against any legislative reform.

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Not at all. The judges appointed by the opposition party, protect the laws made by the opposition party, when they were in government. This way the government can not just ignore those laws. So most countries have very long term limits for judges to deal with that. Hence a single government can not just stack the courts. Term limits are used, so no single government just happens to be able to appoint a lot more judges then usual. However even with the term limit being death, a court like the US supreme court has judges appointed by five different presidents for example.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          The judges appointed by the opposition party, protect the laws made by the opposition party

          Why would you want a judge protecting bad laws?

          Hence a single government can not just stack the courts.

          But a party that’s held power for decades can. Mexico spent nearly a century under a single party. You’ll find similar dynamics in Japan, Germany, Korea, the UK, China, Venezuela, Russia, Pakistan, Thailand…

          Imagine a Venezuela election in which Maduro is replaced, but the Chavez/Maduro packed court simply rules the new government illegitimate and strikes down all their decisions. Do you just wait until all the Chaveismo judges retire/die? Or do you replace them?