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.

  • slickgoat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve made this point elsewhere. In Australia the Chief justices are appointed by the government based on a shortlist presented by the legal establishment. They are preeminently qualified and are above politics. Both sides of the political spectrum are fine with this system and it is not gamed.

    It is utterly non-controversial and the Australian people respect the institution. Tell me again how it is absurd to remove politics from a judicial system?

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      If you believe anyone is above politics I have a bridge to sell you.

      • slickgoat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Well, there are degrees, aren’t there? Some judicial systems ban individual reproductive rights, allow corporations to be people and give criminal immunity to presidents, and some don’t.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The same was said about the SCOTUS until recently, where it’s become very obvious it is political and has a ton of power to enact their political goals.

        • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That’s just because your conservatives haven’t discovered not confirming justices. We used to have bipartisan consensus on judicial picks as well. Give it time as the other capitalist countries continue to decay and get more fascist. Relying on these moral codes and gentleman’s agreements doesn’t work once a party learns to disrupt the system.

          Obama literally picked a judge the opposition said was the only one they would pick and then they still didn’t. You can’t remove politics from these systems.

          • slickgoat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Your reply assumes that the rest of the world must follow the US example. That’s not necessarily true, although there is a bit of flirtation going on here and there with fascist populism, Western countries with Western values have managed to put a choke hold on the worst.

            Also, loading the SCOTUS benches with partisan picks is not exactly a new thing. FDR was doing it for the Dems in the 1930s.