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.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • Decoy321@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Electing judges will get them involved with party politics. They’ll have to spend time campaigning, and there will be less experienced judges.

        • TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          34 minutes ago

          No. The ruling party gets to appoint a new judge when one retires.

          Afaik the problem is that the Democrats play nice and the Republicans take advantage of this, because why wouldn’t they? Ofc each party is going to appoint a judge with alligned world views, but sitting judges don’t need to show loyalty or do party politics whatsoever.

        • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Supreme Court justices are appointed and they serve for life (or retirement/resignation). State justices can vary.

    • Troy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I think the US has shown that unelected judges aren’t inherently impartial.

        • Troy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          The US is broken for many reasons.

          The Canadian Supreme Court, by comparison (in fact all judges in Canada) are merit based appointments. So far we’ve managed to avoid political appointments, for the most part. Although current conservative rhetoric is starting to target the courts.

          Most functioning western world countries do not have partisanship in their courts.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Like most of what the US does, it’s been perverted by money. Most other functioning democracies run a judicial system that’s independent of the administration and at least reasonably impartial.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Yes, unelected judges are not inherently impartial.

          However, elected judges are unanimously awful.

          There is a distinction there. The former is capable of impartiality.

    • d00ery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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)

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Sortition democracy is one of the cooler ideas anarchists have come up with as a way to replace representative democracy.

    • notaviking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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.