206
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
206 points (99.5% liked)
World News
32359 readers
353 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is probably the worst option. Judges should be professional and not populists pandering to the public.
Literally reactionary.
This ideology is what lead to the US having a fascist Court.
What? Democratically appointed judges? That’s amazing , wonder why the US hasn’t thought of this? Ohh right that’s because we give way too much power to the one in office. This is great for Mexico now the US needs to do this.
Several states have elected Supreme Court Justices. Across the states, it has been seen that rulings are generally more inconsistent.
That said, Mexico has civil law instead of common law where legal precedent carries a lot less value.
I'd rather have a bumbling judge who is trying to help people rather than a competent evangelical ghoul
The problem is that the judges often use their decisions to campaign instead of simply applying the law. So they might give an unpopular criminal defendant a harsher sentence to look tough on crime or even tilt a trial against an innocent defendant. Not that doesn't happen with judges that are appointed by the executive, but it's usually not as bad.
"usually not as bad" requires a citation, since we can point to lots of evidence of systemic injustice in sentencing as it is. example
What you are describing is a judge pursuing an agenda and/or having an unconscious bias, which is what we have already. That's the thing I keep getting with objections to voting in judges, problems that we already have presented as though they only apply to elected judges, or problems that would be demonstrably less bad with popular input.
Via the Brennan Center. Elected judges are more punitive and more likely to rule against defendants.
As far as I can tell, that's mostly not what the study says. What it is saying is that the event of a judicial election and the pressures associated therewith demonstrably cause systemic disadvantage to defendants and appellants near election time, but it doesn't actually address how the overall rulings of elected judges compare to appointed judges except for one study it mentions that does say, in your defense, that they [elected judges] reverse death sentences less often in the states that have the death penalty. However it goes on to say:
And later says:
And that's really the full extent to which it addresses the subject of appointment.
You can get an incompetent evangelical ghoul voted into office. How do you think most county magistrates get voted in?
I'd rather an incompetent evangelical ghoul hold office than a competent one, but I don't really see a point in your argument either way since those same places are getting evangelical ghouls appointed already. It's not like there's some enlightened progressive governor presiding over a clear majority of racewar enthusiasts or whatever. When there is a disjunction between a politician and their "constituents," it is usually that the politician is more conservative than the people, but the people weren't given someone more progressive to vote for. That's the way the system works, it is fundamentally right-biased, with many checks on democratic power.
The problem is that there is value in legal systems producing consistent results, especially when it comes to the kind of law both sides can spend millions on. Without consistency, the legal system backs up more than now as rulings are so wildly different that it makes sense to play the lottery with the courts. That causes cases to sit even longer and defense costs to raise higher for smaller participants.
And if the system doesn't perform well for those less advantaged, courts aren't the best place to defend making this systematic change. At best, it acts as a relief valve to pushing actionable political change.
Having a judge who won't rule your relatively benign protest action to be "terrorism" seems like a good way of supporting systemic change.
But that requires the public voting. In Mexico, it also requires planning out judicial succession as the executive branch has term limits and I expect this would get propagated to the judiciary.
You need judicial succession anyway, given that people die, but we have plenty of examples of the intuition you express there not holding up. After all, there are no term limits for US congress people despite the strict term limits for the President.
Of course, I oppose term limits, I think they're another guardrail for capital, since the capitalists don't have a term limit on their wealth, which they can use to keep backing pliable puppets.
Mejor dicho, imposible. Yo aún tenía la esperanza de que la Suprema Corte de Justicia pudiera bloquear la reforma, pero está cañón con todo el arrastre que tiene M0rena.
If there are education and experience requirements imposed on judicial candidates, and then they are elected, this is not an issue. Because those who are elected are accountable to those who elected them
(provided they can be removed from.power by the same people, which is one of those "checks and balances" Western "democracies " have imposed so we can't remove them).
That way you have professionals/experts who are accountable to the people. Obviously elections can always be tampered with and influenced by powerful and moneyed interests, but by assuming this is true and then making it the default is a bit daft tbh.
This is an inheritently reactionary and anti-democratic idea.
So they should only pander to the political class? That seems great...
How does one be a populist while not pandering to the public.
They're saying they shouldn't be. Unless you're trying to say their statement is redundant?
It said something else before the edit but it's all good now.