88
submitted 5 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Eight of the country’s 11 supreme court judges will stand down over reforms supported by President Claudia Sheinbaum

Eight of Mexico's 11 supreme court judges have submitted their resignations after controversial judicial reforms, the top court has said.

In a move that has sparked diplomatic tensions and opposition street protests, Mexico is set to become the world's only country to allow voters to choose all judges, at every level, starting next year.

The eight justices -- including president Norma Pina -- declined to stand for election in June 2025, a statement said, adding that one of the resignations would take effect in November and the rest next August.

The announcement came as the supreme court prepares to consider a proposal to invalidate the election of judges and magistrates. President Claudia Sheinbaum, however, has said that the court lacks the authority to reverse a constitutional reform approved by congress.

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 6 points 51 minutes ago

Honestly, this is a stupid thing to do. Democratically determine how you want to run your country by enacting a constitution and laws, then have a judiciary that isn't beholden to transitory politics to interpret those laws. If they aren't being interpreted the way you want, then fix the laws or impeach the judges.

But electing the officials that decide how the laws are interpreted is a fasttrack to fuckery. It's a terrible way to run a democracy.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 19 points 4 hours ago

What would be a real world problem on voting for those judges?

[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 hours ago

Elected judges cannot ever truly be impartial judges. The Rule of Law in a democracy means that politicians are subject to the Law as much as anyone else. But electing judges turns them into politicians with the power to give themselves more power without checks and balances.

Basically it removes the independence of the judiciary, and in the process erodes democracy. Ironically.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 hour ago

I think the US has shown that unelected judges aren't inherently impartial.

[-] prole 2 points 31 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago)

Yes, unelected judges are not inherently impartial.

However, elected judges are unanimously awful.

There is a distinction there. The former is capable of impartiality.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 55 minutes ago

Like most of what the US does, it's been perverted by money. Most other functioning democracies run a judicial system that's independent of the administration and at least reasonably impartial.

[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 2 points 58 minutes ago

The US is broken for many reasons.

The Canadian Supreme Court, by comparison (in fact all judges in Canada) are merit based appointments. So far we've managed to avoid political appointments, for the most part. Although current conservative rhetoric is starting to target the courts.

Most functioning western world countries do not have partisanship in their courts.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

That is a good point.

[-] TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee 19 points 4 hours ago

Electing judges will get them involved with party politics. They'll have to spend time campaigning, and there will be less experienced judges.

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 1 points 29 minutes ago

The US has that, doesn't it?

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Good point. Thank you

[-] notaviking@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

My opinion is, not based on Mexico, that the public is uninformed in the majority of decisions. Basically delegating power to the common person, especially technical decisions to the public will mean the most popular choice will win mostly, not the best choice. That is basically populism in a nutshell. Imagine you had to choose in this example a food policymaker, the one is the charismatic Willy Wonka that will say he wants everyone to eat sweets all the time, he wants you to eat whatever you want to eat, give you choices by subsidising all the sweets, worse he will attack Dr. Grouch, because he wants to tell you what to eat, force additional taxes on sweets to try and guide people to eat more gross vegetables, in fact basically force you, the poorest to have no choice but to eat these "healthy" foods. And unfortunately Dr. Grouch will agree, he wants you to eat "healthy food because in a couple of years you and your children will reap the benefits.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

By this logic, we shouldn't democratically choose any government positions.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

Ok, then why don't we apply this logic to democratically electing politicians?

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Thank you for a solid answer.

[-] iorale@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago

Also, the election process will be people voting for 1700 positions (more or less), this will take hours for a single ballot and they expect thousands of votes... It just can't be done.
The candidates will come out of a raffle too, so we won't be getting the more prepared or smarter, we will get someone and hope for the best... But most likely they will be under the control of the current regiment if they want the electoral judges to claim them as winners.

Basically The purpose of a system is what it does

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

1,700?

Wow!

[-] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

The rich can't control you as easily

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 4 points 3 hours ago

The concern is actually the opposite.

[-] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Democracy is the only viable system of government. That said, turning judges into politicians is probably not what we want, and there’s a lot of uncertainty in the philosophical literature about how best to deal with the judicial branch in general.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago
[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 hours ago

More like democracy good, but justice is not a popularity contest.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

Justice is a democratic process, what the hell are you talking about? Justice has only ever come after democratic forces pushed it to the forefront and struggled against established power to make it happen.

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 1 points 26 minutes ago

You must be from the USA to misunderstand the separation of powers so badly.

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

I love this. We shouldn’t be beholden to the president to select judges if and when they die or resign. Limit their terms and let people elect them. Take note US.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The US already has elected judges, they're so incredibly bad we barely even bother to write about it anymore. I know people talk about who are they beholden to? But that's the irrelevant question actually. The real problem is a judge that's elected has to campaign. And there's no greater source of corruption in all of politics than campaigning. No amount of patronage will ever equal the amount of corruption that comes from going around and begging rich people for money so you can be elected.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/03/claudia-sheinbaum-president-mexico-party-supermajority
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/31/mexico-supreme-court-judges-resign-voting-reforms
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/11/mexico-senate-approve-changes-judiciary
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
88 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38936 readers
1537 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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