The idea that judges shouldn’t be elected is deeply rooted in the reactionary ideology of an aristocracy that believed the masses shouldn’t be trusted with any decisions that actually matter and should be regarded with suspicion instead of trusted with decisions.
Judges shouldnt be elected for the same reasons surgeons shouldnt be elected.
This logic can be applied to lawmakers too.
What’s the difference?
Legislators are there to directly reflect the opinions and interests of their constituents, judges are there to have expert knowledge of the law and how it applies to each case uniquely. The first needs some form of democratic mechanism to ensure that they represent people’s current opinions, the later needs a meritocratic mechanism to ensure they are experts in the correct fields.
If judges were the only element of a court I would agree that it would be problematic to have no democratic input, but in common law systems at least that element is represented by juries who are the most powerful element of a court case as they are unchallengable arbiters of fact and drawn through sortition which is even more democratic than election.
This is ideology. There’s no material mechanism to actually ensure judges are experts or have merit. They’re just picked by politicians, who themselves are selected democratically rather than by merit.
This just cuts out the middlemen. If the selection process is unable to select for merit, then it might as well be democratic.
The UK has an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
Which can be overruled by an elected official but generally is directed to pick on merit and allowed to do so.
Allowing professionals to pick experts and only stepping in when there is a problem is much better to me than direct elections which quickly become partisan and obstructive to professional candidates.
All it takes is getting a few panel members with an ideological axe to grind and suddenly the selection process for judges and the JAC panel itself becomes politicized in that particular direction.
But furthermore, the very framework of law is political. You can’t actually non-politically adjudicate disputes or reviews or appointments or dismissals, there are always political underpinnings and ideological assumptions embedded within the process. The very fact that they currently “particularly welcome applications from ethnic minority candidates and Welsh speakers” is political, and acknowledges that it is political and ideological and not truly objective.
Law isn’t math.
An attempt to be representative is not equal to being “political”.
It’s actually a strength of the system that minorities get some representation rather than being always voted into zero representatives. And they still have to pass the standards to be considered as experts in the field.
No system is perfect, but look at America. Small area elections for judges produce poor corrupt picks. Large area elections produce partisan fights with extremists campaigning against each other.
There’s no country which is a good advert for directly electing judges.
I’m sure as hell I’d want to choose between surgeons. For example, I’d easily choose the one not trafficking organs.
Yeah but have you seen what the masses choose sometimes?
Always great to see how libs who never stop bleating about authoritarianism, don’t actually believe in democracy themselves.
This is probably the worst option. Judges should be professional and not populists pandering to the public.
Literally reactionary.
This ideology is what lead to the US having a fascist Court.
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.
Several states have elected Supreme Court Justices. Across the states, it has been seen that rulings are generally more inconsistent.
That said, Mexico has civil law instead of common law where legal precedent carries a lot less value.
I’d rather have a bumbling judge who is trying to help people rather than a competent evangelical ghoul
The problem is that the judges often use their decisions to campaign instead of simply applying the law. So they might give an unpopular criminal defendant a harsher sentence to look tough on crime or even tilt a trial against an innocent defendant. Not that doesn’t happen with judges that are appointed by the executive, but it’s usually not as bad.
“usually not as bad” requires a citation, since we can point to lots of evidence of systemic injustice in sentencing as it is. example
What you are describing is a judge pursuing an agenda and/or having an unconscious bias, which is what we have already. That’s the thing I keep getting with objections to voting in judges, problems that we already have presented as though they only apply to elected judges, or problems that would be demonstrably less bad with popular input.
Via the Brennan Center. Elected judges are more punitive and more likely to rule against defendants.
As far as I can tell, that’s mostly not what the study says. What it is saying is that the event of a judicial election and the pressures associated therewith demonstrably cause systemic disadvantage to defendants and appellants near election time, but it doesn’t actually address how the overall rulings of elected judges compare to appointed judges except for one study it mentions that does say, in your defense, that they [elected judges] reverse death sentences less often in the states that have the death penalty. However it goes on to say:
These studies leave open several important research questions. For example, they generally do not compare systems, and thus do not address whether some re-election or retention election systems have more of an impact on criminal justice outcomes than others, or whether reappointment processes may also have an effect.
And later says:
Much of the empirical research considering the impact of judicial selection dynamics on criminal justice outcomes has focused on elections. Further study is needed to understand the incentive structures created by appointive systems, particularly those that provide for reappointment. The few studies that have considered these dynamics suggest there may be reasons for concern.
For example, in one such study, Joanna Shepherd examined how the political preferences of those determining whether to extend a judge’s tenure impact judicial decision-making. Just as the public’s preferences may impact case outcomes within electoral systems, Shepherd found that the preferences of governors can have a similar effect in states where they play a role in reappointing judges. 92 Indeed, Shepherd determined that as governorships change hands, so too do judicial rulings; when a Republican governor replaces a Democratic governor, judges’ rulings in a variety of cases, including criminal cases, shift.93 Shepherd’s findings suggest that reselection pressures are a concern even outside the election context, and highlight the need for further inquiry into the dynamics of appointive systems.
And that’s really the full extent to which it addresses the subject of appointment.
You can get an incompetent evangelical ghoul voted into office. How do you think most county magistrates get voted in?
I’d rather an incompetent evangelical ghoul hold office than a competent one, but I don’t really see a point in your argument either way since those same places are getting evangelical ghouls appointed already. It’s not like there’s some enlightened progressive governor presiding over a clear majority of racewar enthusiasts or whatever. When there is a disjunction between a politician and their “constituents,” it is usually that the politician is more conservative than the people, but the people weren’t given someone more progressive to vote for. That’s the way the system works, it is fundamentally right-biased, with many checks on democratic power.
The problem is that there is value in legal systems producing consistent results, especially when it comes to the kind of law both sides can spend millions on. Without consistency, the legal system backs up more than now as rulings are so wildly different that it makes sense to play the lottery with the courts. That causes cases to sit even longer and defense costs to raise higher for smaller participants.
And if the system doesn’t perform well for those less advantaged, courts aren’t the best place to defend making this systematic change. At best, it acts as a relief valve to pushing actionable political change.
And if the system doesn’t perform well for those less advantaged, courts aren’t the best place to defend making this systematic change. At best, it acts as a relief valve to pushing actionable political change.
Having a judge who won’t rule your relatively benign protest action to be “terrorism” seems like a good way of supporting systemic change.
deleted by creator
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.
So they should only pander to the political class? That seems great…
deleted by creator
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.
The very same reaction to the amend shows how urgent it is to to change the judicial system. I’m glad this was done and I can’t wait to vote corrupt judges out of office.
Interesting. If judges are going to be political regardless, I don’t see another option for democracies.
Strong and diverse press, strong and enforced rules against politically motivated decisions. A judge should know that, if they don’t strictly follow the law, they’ll lose their job. This won’t make the thing perfect, but far better than officially political judges.
deleted by creator
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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
There is no such thing as an apolitical judge. The judges you see as apolitical are just centrists supporting the status quo, but that is not actually an apolitical frame of action.
