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.
So how would the judges be appointed under this system and why is it better than having them chosen from the people?
If the current system hasn’t prevented political influence, then the method of choosing obviously isn’t guaranteeing unbiased judges anyway, so what’s the point in keeping it as opposed to elected judges?
Why not have elected judges and
Strong and diverse press, strong and enforced rules against politically motivated decisions.
You seem quite competent in researching from Wikipedia. Could you point me to the part of the article mentioning how fascism is related to women feminist presidents with a PhD, democratically and legtimately elected with a remarkable progressive agenda?
So how would the judges be appointed under this system and why is it better than having them chosen from the people?
By competition and diploma. A judge is a legal technician. Why elect him on political bases? We do not elect an engineer on political criteria, we take the one who seems the best among the candidates.
If the current system hasn’t prevented political influence, then the method of choosing obviously isn’t guaranteeing unbiased judges anyway, so what’s the point in keeping it as opposed to elected judges?
There are plenty of lawyers prepared to be judges in Mexico, competition and diplomas are gonna be a part of the process. Corrupt judges do have titles and diplomas after all. The democratic element is to complete a pre-selection made by the Congress, the Executive and the Judicial powers, at least for magistrates and the Supreme Court.
Who do you compete with over what/in what way and who controls the competition/decides the winner? Is anything that influences this process political?
Does requiring that judges be elected remove requirements for diplomas? It definitely increases competition as you have to compete for the will of the people.
Why elect him on political bases?
Everything is political. The laws are determined by politics, every single person’s interpretation of said laws is determined by politics.
A better question is, how does your system actually effectively remove politics from the process? Or does it simply shift the political aspect from the people themselves to another third party?
Why shouldn’t the people themselves decide how they want the laws enforced in their own country? Who else should decide if not the people?
We do not elect an engineer on political criteria, we take the one who seems the best among the candidates.
Who determines which engineer seems the best off of what criteria? Is it political at all?
Example: engineer1 is great at building bridges but only alright at apartments, engineer2 is great at building apartments but bad at bridges.
The people of the city know the city requires more apartments but not more bridges.
Why should engineer1 get the job for simply being the “better engineer” when he doesn’t fit the needs of the people?
What’s the point to elect them?
Why shouldn’t a judge serve and be accountable to the will of the people? Who knows better? Why?
And how is it not an authoritarian, anti-democratic, politicalopinion to state that someone does better know what the people need than the people?
So how would the judges be appointed under this system and why is it better than having them chosen from the people?
If the current system hasn’t prevented political influence, then the method of choosing obviously isn’t guaranteeing unbiased judges anyway, so what’s the point in keeping it as opposed to elected judges?
Why not have elected judges and
?
deleted by creator
What is fascist about the current government? Oh, you are just plainly lying.
deleted by creator
You seem quite competent in researching from Wikipedia. Could you point me to the part of the article mentioning how fascism is related to women feminist presidents with a PhD, democratically and legtimately elected with a remarkable progressive agenda?
deleted by creator
The misogynist is her, you say, while you can’t even accept she can think at all by herself.
By competition and diploma. A judge is a legal technician. Why elect him on political bases? We do not elect an engineer on political criteria, we take the one who seems the best among the candidates.
What’s the point to elect them?
There are plenty of lawyers prepared to be judges in Mexico, competition and diplomas are gonna be a part of the process. Corrupt judges do have titles and diplomas after all. The democratic element is to complete a pre-selection made by the Congress, the Executive and the Judicial powers, at least for magistrates and the Supreme Court.
What sort of competition and diploma?
Who do you compete with over what/in what way and who controls the competition/decides the winner? Is anything that influences this process political?
Does requiring that judges be elected remove requirements for diplomas? It definitely increases competition as you have to compete for the will of the people.
Everything is political. The laws are determined by politics, every single person’s interpretation of said laws is determined by politics.
A better question is, how does your system actually effectively remove politics from the process? Or does it simply shift the political aspect from the people themselves to another third party?
Why shouldn’t the people themselves decide how they want the laws enforced in their own country? Who else should decide if not the people?
Who determines which engineer seems the best off of what criteria? Is it political at all?
Example: engineer1 is great at building bridges but only alright at apartments, engineer2 is great at building apartments but bad at bridges.
The people of the city know the city requires more apartments but not more bridges.
Why should engineer1 get the job for simply being the “better engineer” when he doesn’t fit the needs of the people?
Why shouldn’t a judge serve and be accountable to the will of the people? Who knows better? Why?
And how is it not an authoritarian, anti-democratic, political opinion to state that someone does better know what the people need than the people?