9mo ago

Mexico supreme court judges resign over reforms to allow voters to elect judiciary

www.theguardian.com

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.

52 comments

What would be a real world problem on voting for those judges?
- It biases them towards catering to public demand instead of being a neutral arbiter of justice.
  Want to keep your job as judge? Better not be 'weak on crime' etc...
  
  It biases them towards catering to public demand instead of being a neutral arbiter of justice.
  But they're biased anyway, towards whoever has the power to take away their job. They're never neutral arbiters of justice.
  
  That’s what the founding fathers thought but they end up being biased to whomever gets them the seat. Additionally, if the country decides to become more progressive or conservative, judges either have to be flexible based on public opinion, or they need term limits to make room for change. It’s broken.
- Electing judges will get them involved with party politics. They'll have to spend time campaigning, and there will be less experienced judges.
  
  The US has that, doesn't it?
  
  Good point. Thank you
- Interesting question, and as lots have already commented, judges are possibly biased to whoever keeps them in power.
  Perhaps a lottery amongst the pool of potential judges (lawyers or whoever it may be)
  
  Sortition democracy is one of the cooler ideas anarchists have come up with as a way to replace representative democracy.
- 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.
  
  I think the US has shown that unelected judges aren't inherently impartial.
  
  That is a good point.
- 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.
  
  Ok, then why don't we apply this logic to democratically electing politicians?
  
  By this logic, we shouldn't democratically choose any government positions.
  
  Despite the obvious common root in "populism" and "popular", I don't think that's a fair "nutshell" description of populism at all.
  The central core of populism is opposition to an elite ruling class. Right wing populism tends to attack education and expertise which does fit loosely with your description, but left wing populism is more focused on wealthy elites. Wealth has always been a terrible proxy for merit or the ability to rule.
  To be against populism you either have to disagree that we are largely ruled by a class of elites, or think that being ruled by elites is not a bad thing. Anyone that thinks elites are not in control of the economy and political system in the US is borderline delusional. Anyone who thinks the elites got there by merit need to learn a lot more about figures like Elon Musk, Trump, or the Clintons.
  
  Thank you for a solid answer.
- 1,700?
  Wow!
- Democracy bad.
  
  More like democracy good, but justice is not a popularity contest.
- The rich can't control you as easily
  
  The concern is actually the opposite.
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.
- It's really hard to see your point when the American judicial branch is so obviously beholden to party politics and special interests. Judges can be voted on a lifetime appointment by a simple majority of 51 senators, who are likely to represent less than half the voting population of the country. I really think it's time for clunkier and more archaic forms of democracy to make way for a more direct and agile way to run the government. At the rate we're going, generations-long problems like climate change will be addressed when it's too late.
  
  Afaik, they can be impeached, can they not? And as I said in another comment, somehow the US has managed yet again to completely subvert a part of democracy that nobody else seems to have a problem with.
- It's a terrible way, except all the others that have been tried.
  each system has its pros and cons. They should be tailored to the specific needs of that specific system. So say, if you've got a problem with unelected officials getting corrupt and throwing wrenches in the rest of the system, then it might be beneficial to rework the laws to more easily remove said officials.
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.
- 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.
  
  Talking about Supreme Court. They are not elected, they are appointed. For sure, lots of corruption in campaigning. You know what’s more corrupt? Campaigning for an audience of one. You may not call it campaigning because it happens behind closed doors but these judges don’t just get appointed based on their merit.
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

52 comments