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
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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.

    • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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…

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        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.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          In a well run country that requires a supermajority of some kind of council picked by different groups like some representatives for the judges, others picked by the legislature, etc. which avoids any group having full control of the courts.

        • TomSelleck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Especially in rural areas where they can just legislate criminal justice policy from the bench.

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

        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.

    • TheBlackLounge
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 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.

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

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 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
          3 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.

        • Troy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 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.

    • d00ery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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)

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

        • toiletobserver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony

          • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            Democracy is the only viable system of government. That said, turning judges into politicians is probably not what we want, and there’s a lot of uncertainty in the philosophical literature about how best to deal with the judicial branch in general.

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 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
      3 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.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 hours ago
    The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for The Guardian:

    Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
    Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


    The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for The Guardian:

    Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
    Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


    The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for The Guardian:

    Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
    Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/03/claudia-sheinbaum-president-mexico-party-supermajority
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/31/mexico-supreme-court-judges-resign-voting-reforms
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/11/mexico-senate-approve-changes-judiciary

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support