archive.ph
archive.ph

Electing Judges in Mexico? It’s a Bad Idea.

But, consistent with his systematic attacks on checks and balances, his project to elect judges could lead to the death of democracy in Mexico.

. . .

Ms. Singh is a professor at Stanford Law School and the executive director of the school’s Rule of Law Impact Lab. Ms. Garcia is an expert adviser to the lab.

https://law.stanford.edu/rule-of-law-impact-lab/#slsnav-our-focus :

Democracy is in decline around the world. Governments elected to power with populist agendas are increasingly adopting authoritarian tactics. There are striking similarities in the methods deployed to subvert democracy. These methods typically include compromising electoral integrity, undermining judicial independence, and quashing free expression and dissent. The Stanford Law School Rule of Law Impact Lab studies and uses legal tools to counter core threats to democracy and to promote democratic renewal worldwide.

Incredible

  • Sodium_nitrideEnglish
    19·
    15 days ago

    I mean, elections (in bourgeoise and parliamentary “democracies”) are actually anti-democratic. They are nothing more than a method for the bourgeoise to select members of their class to rule the country which is why socialist theorists have spent so much time and energy arguing against parliamentarianism. But I doubt this is what the liberal writer here means.

    • Wertheimer [any]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      17·
      15 days ago

      Yeah. The checks and balances they support are what’s anti-democratic. As James Madison wrote, and as @emizeko@hexbear.net has posted before:

      In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.