So these judges are basically refusing a democratic foundation for their power. This policy should be brought to other countries. I'd love to make Clarence Thomas win an election to keep his seat. Or all the other judges that overthrew Roe v. Wade for that matter.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
64 points (100.0% liked)
World News
864 readers
604 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
Other communities of interest:
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
Or a vote of retention like Colorado does. Governor appoints the judges but voters must retain them or new judges must be appointed. Kind of strikes a balance between overtly campaigning judges and more democratic influence on the judiciary
That actually does sound better. Voter assessment of actions in office, not influence of who gets into office (e.g. I don't think I'm qualified to pick a Supreme Court judge). It serves as a check and balance on situations like we see today where the SCOTUS is destroying public trust in the justice system.
Yeah, i would actually rather cases be assigned randomly to people on the circuit court instead of having people on a Supreme Court, even if they're term limited. Then you just rotate who the assignments go to, and force the circuit courts to be elected, just like everybody else. But, there's also more of them, so less chance of there being attempts at partisan stacking.
Isn’t this a good thing? If these people are given the power to enforce societal rules, they should be chosen by society.
Depends on what kind of judges "society" will elect. I'm generally more fine with a judge selected by an equitable and well-informed set of voters out of, say, Houston or LA or Chicago than I would be with a judge selected by The Amish Society, the Federalist Society, or one informed entirely by cable news breaking headlines.
Right now, the Mexican court is a legacy of the outgoing PRI party, which has held power in Mexico for over 70 years. The incoming Morena Party - which has significantly more left-leaning and popular politics than the old business-friendly PRI - has had its reformed blocked by the courts on a number of occasions. The legislative/executive branch are imposing these term-limits and recall elections to force out the old PRI judges with the expectation that they'll be replaced by more friendly Morena judges.
So... do you support PRI policy or Morena policy? That's all that really matters here. "Society" chooses the judges in both instances. Its just a question of which society (the outgoing older generation or the incoming younger one) that adjudicates into the future.
I think it's a good thing in this case. The country elected a much more liberal president than the party that's been in power for ages, so the likelihood is they'll elect more liberal judges, too.
...okay? So you're just speeding up the process of replacing your ass?
Shoot, we should try that in USA.