Just a moment...
apnews.com

Protesters in Mexico City blocked entrances to Congress Tuesday over proposals that would make judges stand for election.

A mix of court employees, students and other critics chanted and strung ropes across entrances to the lower house of Congress.

Many employees, including those at the Supreme Court, have gone on strike to protest constitutional reforms proposed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s Morena party that they say would politicize and de-professionalize the court system.

Under the current system, judges and court secretaries, who act as judges’ assistants, slowly qualify for higher positions based on their record. But under the proposed changes, any lawyer with minimal qualifications could run, with some candidacies decided by drawing names from a hat.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    141·
    12 days ago

    America is a really good example of why elected judges is a mixed bag - in counties where it happens you’ll occasionally see some righteous dethroning of a corrupt judge… but you’ll also see most elections go unnoticed with judges winning based on party alone and flying under the radar to enrich themselves.

    Compare that to the Supreme Court which appoints staffers based mostly on merit (obviously the current panel of justices is fucking disappointing) or political appointment by congress that’s given us Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Cannon.

    Election of jurists or internal career paths both have their advantages and disadvantages… political appointments is the only system that’s truly balls.

    • girlfreddyOPEnglish
      6·
      12 days ago

      Canada does appointments from the beginning (merit-based), meaning our judicial system is really good (unless you’re a Trumpist, of which we have far too many).

      Judges who have too many rulings overturned on appeal due to dumb shit get their hand slapped the first time, second time can lead to removal (depending on how serious the stupidity was).

      But our laws are not based on original intent, which (to me anyway) makes far more sense than how American SCOTUS makes rulings. I mean society is vastly different now than even 100 years ago, so why think that laws made back then make sense now?

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        12 days ago

        We can’t agree on jack-shit, so we try to reach back to the nearest point back where there was agreement and use that.

        At least traditionally, that was how it went. It’s dumb as fuck, but there was a kind of conflict-avoidant logic to the judiciary’s madness. Now SCOTUS just quotes 17th century English witch hunters and calls it a day.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
        2·
        11 days ago

        Don’t make the mistake it thinking originalism is based on anything making sense. It’s just an excuse to justify bad rulings by dredging to bad ideas from the past. They’re very selective about when they choose to respect original intent.