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.
I want judges who base their rulings on the law and not their political views. In theory, laws adjust to the popular view over time. Judges should not be part of that adjustment.
The law is a consequence of political viewpoints. The issue of Roe, for instance, is decided by the interpretation of a basket of Constitutional rights and privileges.
If laws weren’t up to ideological interpretation, we wouldn’t need judges or lawyers to begin with. They’d just be clerks administration filed paperwork with predetermined outcomes.
There’s no such thing
Maybe, maybe not. But blatantly giving up on neutrality by electing judges based on their political views does not help promote justice.
Between these two options:
indulging in the delusion of neutral judges and letting the elite pick the ones who do the best job of pretending to be neutral while representing their interests
discarding the illusion of neutral judges and picking ones who openly state (and ideally have a record) that they will seek to pursue and enact justice as both they and the better part of the population interpret it
I think one of these is clearly superior for “promoting justice”. Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. I already stated why.
But you yourself admitted that there may be no such thing as “neutral,” “apolitical” justices. If there aren’t, what good does pretending do?
Where did I “admit” that? I said maybe, maybe not. Campaigning on the issues will lock judges into their biases. It will never work well.
I said
Which is what you said. I characterized your statement correctly.
What does this mean? Everyone has biases, I don’t see how campaigning matters for that. Do you mean, perhaps, that it prevents judges from changing for branding purposes? Because that objection has two serious problems: 1) what the public wants will change over time and 2) people should do what they’re elected to, so what does it matter if someone keeps getting elected for maintaining the same popular platform?