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.
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.
The civilians won’t pick the candidates, the state will (different parts of it, but all of them under the control of Morena) and then they’ll use the civilians to vote for them and then frame it as if it was the will of the people. You know, populism.
Also the narcos are REALLY happy about this change, because the candidates are going to need money to campaign and they could always use a hand in higher places (even if the president protects the narcos already).
It doesn’t touch the police problem at all or the security problem, but it allows Morena to fill the magistrate with their people regardless of their studies, they can even put criminals in there (search for the history of any Morena member, they have murderers, thiefs, pedos and rapists).
Now tell me… What does this change fix? Besides “now people can vote for Morenas picks!”.
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 probably the worst option. Judges should be professional and not populists pandering to the public.
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.
Pssst, your ignorance is showing.
The civilians won’t pick the candidates, the state will (different parts of it, but all of them under the control of Morena) and then they’ll use the civilians to vote for them and then frame it as if it was the will of the people. You know, populism.
Also the narcos are REALLY happy about this change, because the candidates are going to need money to campaign and they could always use a hand in higher places (even if the president protects the narcos already).
It doesn’t touch the police problem at all or the security problem, but it allows Morena to fill the magistrate with their people regardless of their studies, they can even put criminals in there (search for the history of any Morena member, they have murderers, thiefs, pedos and rapists).
Now tell me… What does this change fix? Besides “now people can vote for Morenas picks!”.
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.
Literally reactionary.
This ideology is what lead to the US having a fascist Court.
So they should only pander to the political class? That seems great…
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.
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.