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

World News

38977 readers
3093 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
 

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
[–] KillerTofu 46 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Is it worse than having judges appointed for life?

[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Probably. You're now going to have judges raising money to campaign. And the average on-the-street voter knows fuck-all about what qualifies somebody to be a judge, so they're unlikely to pick better candidates.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What qualifies someone to be a judge is simply redefined to be what is popular. A judge should therefore no longer follow the law, but make the ruling most in line with what is popular. Under a voting system that is the sole qualifier.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Which is what the legislature is for.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yikes. That's an insanely misguided worldview.

Do you know what was real popular for centuries? Fucking slavery.

Popularity, like legality, is independent of morality. We should be striving to better understand how to improve the well-being of everyone, and use that information to legislate what is moral based on that ultimate goal. Popularity should not figure into this at all.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Slavery looks a lot more popular when you don't let the slaves vote. If the slaves could vote -- i.e. if there was a greater degree of democracy -- there would surely be no slavery. It was the repression of the political power of a large segment of the population that enabled slavery.

Surely, if we educate people on class consciousness, they will generally act in alignment with the common interest, right prole? Certainly it's not a better solution to dictate morality to them unilaterally through some technocratic institution (that's rather like what the aristocracy was), because we have no particular way of ensuring that they will act in the common interest -- which is not especially their interest -- unlike the common people, for whom the common interest is their interest.

[–] Stern 48 points 1 month ago (3 children)

No system is 100% resistant to shitters.

Life appointment was supposed to get judges to focus on issues and not make decisions with re-election in mind. Supreme court in the U.S. has shown us how that is going.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. In Canada, an independent advisory board reviews applications and provides a shortlist of candidates. The Prime Minister selects a nominee from this list. The nominee may participate in a public hearing before being officially appointed.

That is why it has not been a partisan issue so far.

[–] FrostyTheDoo 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The way US politics has gone the last 30 years, the advisory board would be politicized and polarized within 3 election cycles, no matter how the board itself is selected.

[–] Womble 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thats a problem with political appointments by the president not life terms.

[–] Stern 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Federal appointments still have to be approved, and even with SCOTUS they can still get rejected, e.g. Bork

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination

Thomas was close to rejection too owing to Anita Hill's testimony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

[–] Womble 5 points 1 month ago

But the vast majority of the time they are approved, and the nomination begins with politicians. Contrast this to the way the UK does it where the appointments come from the senior judges with politicians then approving or rejecting the proposed new member.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

My condolences to him

[–] FlyingSquid 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bork was nothing compared to Harriet Miers. Probably the least qualified person ever nominated to SCOUTS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination

[–] wjrii 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And yet very possibly not the worst person nominated for that specific vacancy.

Samuel Alito, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was nominated four days after her withdrawal and subsequently confirmed.

[–] FlyingSquid 1 points 1 month ago

Oh nowhere near the worst. Just the least qualified.

[–] FlyingSquid 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can have judges appointed and term limit them. It's not an either/or.

[–] Jaderick 8 points 1 month ago

IIRC before these changes take affect, Mexico’s President appoints (at least supreme) court judges who have tenure for 15 years. The ruling party is arguing for these changes to combat corruption. Rumor is that the Mexican legal system is corrupt af, and I haven’t seen any alternatives proposed by the opposition in (English) coverage of the protests, but we’ll see how electing judges goes I guess.

[–] paf0 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would prefer appointments approved by Congress with both term limits and a maximum age. Judges should have minimal political incentive.

[–] Cosmonauticus 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that just make it partisan? The only way any system of appointing judges can work is if its all done in good faith. Considering the corruption in Mexico you seem fucked either way. Not that America is any better.

[–] paf0 2 points 1 month ago

I think it's going to be partisan regardless. Unfortunately, from this article, it's not clear to me the length of their term. If they constantly have to seek reelection then I believe it would be even more partisan than being appointed for a set term.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Depends on who will elect them and how the voting process works.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Limited term appointments is the best tool you can have to get rid of cartel-friendly judges.

[–] slickgoat 0 points 1 month ago

Until the next one steps into place like a cartel vending machine.