644
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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
[-] Stern@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] Mereo@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 months ago

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@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

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

[-] Stern@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

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@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months 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.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago
[-] moody@lemmings.world 1 points 2 months ago
[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

My condolences to him

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

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@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

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@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Oh nowhere near the worst. Just the least qualified.

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

World News

39161 readers
1390 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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