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

World News

39326 readers
3051 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 2 years 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
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not doing that is also political

[–] slickgoat 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, then breathing is political. So is farting.

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

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

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 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Biden is already supplying arms and Harris has vowed to do the same and gone on endlessly about Israel's "right to defend itself" and how anti-genocide protesters are pro terrorism and so on. I'm not saying Trump won't fully support Israel, I'm saying there is no light between that and the Biden-Harris position.

[–] slickgoat 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You are free to vote for Trump then. I'm told many are.

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

When did I ever say I would do that? I am plainly not advocating for such a thing.

[–] slickgoat 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, I think those is your options? Or not vote at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Vote third party, put actual pressure on the Dems to make concessions. If they have your vote no matter what, they have no reason to listen to you.

[–] slickgoat 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You might as well vote for Trump and do it clean, because that's all you are helping.

Look, I'm on your side. I've been against US shitty dealings forever. Iraq, Palestine, favoured treatment towards Israel, meddling in elections, overturned democratic governments, proxy wars... All of it. But Trump is an existential threat. If the house is burning down you don't worry about weeds in the fricken garden. If Trump gets in again Palestine is going to turn into a Walmart carpark. It will probably become Israeli territory, officially, and Arab blood will flow accordingly.

It's a shitty choice, but the real world is not like the movies. Voting for a third candidate and making Trump president won't help anyone.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There's no evidence Trump will be worse on Palestine than the Dems. The idea that Trump is worse than any future frontrunner is myopic alarmism, you'll be whipped into a new frenzy just the same with most or perhaps all future candidates (some of whom will be substantially worse). Furthermore, most people live in states where their vote doesn't have any impact on the winner of the election, sothem voting blue only serves to legitimate the popular mandate of the genocidal dems. I don't know, this is all very obvious but it's like my 50th time saying it in this stupid thread.

You say we're on the same side, but your ideology is one of supporting perpetrators into perpetuity because the tautology you've been talked into has no off-ramp, no point in the future where you stop taking "emergency" "temporary" "provisional" "compromises" to "reduce harm" and instead make actual positive progress. There will always be a new election, there will always be a new Republican platform that declares an interest in doing heinous shit, and very frequently there will be more sincere fascists than Trump, like if Tom Cotton ever runs, and there will never be some demon democrat you won't vote for because they are running against someone who is 1% more reactionary, and that thereby necessitates everyone giving them unconditional support.

It's an unserious strategy based on the panicked mindset of people who are stuck in an abusive relationship with liberal media.

[–] slickgoat 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Jesus, man, where have you been hiding the last nine years?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This does not read to me as a response

[–] slickgoat 2 points 3 months ago

Sorry Feller, you lost me. Enjoy your vote.