Newsline

Newsline , Society

Mexico Judicial “Reform” Is Stark Warning for U.S.

Posted on Saturday, September 21, 2024
|
by David Lewis Schaefer
|
32 Comments
|
Print

On September 15, the eve of Mexico’s Independence Day, outgoing President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, popularly known as AMLO, announced the adoption of a sweeping overhaul of the country’s judicial system following its passage by both houses of the country’s legislature. Americans have ample reason to be concerned about these changes – both as a matter of U.S.-Mexican relations, and as a harbinger of what Democrats’ judicial “reforms” could look like here at home.

Under the ostensible reform bill, sold by AMLO as a way of ensuring that judges will conform their rulings to the popular “will” rather than that of the “powerful,” members of the judiciary—including 1,635 federal judges and magistrates and over 5,700 judges at the state and local level—will now be chosen by popular election rather than appointment. Additionally, the “reform” eliminates the exam-based career track which aspirants for higher judicial offices previously had to pursue, requiring as long as 25 years to rise to the top.

The new law, critics warn, will open the way for far less qualified individuals inevitably more interested in politics (they have to win elections, after all) than the law to become judges. As Adriana Garcia, an adviser to Stanford Law School’s Rule of Law Impact Lab, explained to The New York Times, Mexico will now be transitioning from a system that requires prospective judges to pass a series of “very difficult” tests to one in which they are chosen based purely on “popularity.”

But what are the ramifications for the United States?

It is true that 21 U.S. states choose some judges through popular elections – eight through partisan elections, thirteen through nonpartisan ones – but the stakes in such elections are considerably smaller than if federal judgeships were directly-elected positions. The Founding Fathers wisely devised a system whereby federal judges would be somewhat insulated from transient popular passions, as the Federalist Papers explain.  They rightly feared a situation where judges would care more about appeasing a simple majority of voters than upholding the Constitution and legal precedent.

For these reasons, electing federal judges is extremely rare in democratic nations. In fact, the only large democracy to elect judges at the national level, thanks to a 2009 constitutional change, is Bolivia. Perhaps unsurprisingly, popular confidence in the judiciary is reported to have declined following the change.

In Mexico’s case, the judicial overhaul is widely seen as an act of retaliation by AMLO against the judiciary, which has blocked as unconstitutional such legislative measures favored by the president as putting the civilian-run National Guard under the purview of the military and changing how public servants use government advertising in electoral races. U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar has called the ostensible “reform” a threat to Mexican democracy and warned that it will expose the judicial system to the influence of the country’s powerful criminal cartels. (His comments, and similar criticisms made by the Canadian ambassador to Mexico, led AMLO to pause relations with both embassies.)

The instability that a highly politicized and unprofessional judiciary is likely to introduce is a threat to U.S. investment in Mexico, which is America’s largest trading partner. The changes are also therefore a threat to Mexico’s own economic prosperity.

Moreover, if the judicial overhaul engenders further corruption in the judiciary, the result may be greater difficulty in blocking cartels’ incursions into the U.S.

But a deeper reason for Americans to concern themselves with Mexico’s undermining of the independence and professional character of its judiciary is that AMLO’s purported reform may serve as a harbinger of what Democratic victory in this fall’s presidential and Congressional elections could bring about here in the United States.

Beginning with the Supreme Court under former Chief Justice Earl Warren, Democrats professed a deep respect for the independence of the judiciary – so long as liberal majorities invented new “rights” ungrounded in the text of the Constitution (abortion, same-sex marriage, expanded rights of those criminally accused) while failing to uphold Constitutional guarantees banning racial preferences or limits on campaign spending. But this respect suddenly disappeared with Donald Trump’s appointment of three Constitutionalist judges.

While the new appointees have hardly voted in lock step with conservative priorities, they outraged Democrats with decisions that overturned policies dear to liberals, most notably Constitutional “rights” to abortion (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health) and racial preferences in college admissions (Fair Admissions v. Harvard).

Exemplary of the new disrespect for judicial independence was the charge led by then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in 2020 up the Supreme Court steps, warning Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch that they would face dire consequences for their “awful decisions.”

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer threatened. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” a reference to the Dobbs decision which returned the power of legislation on abortion to the states.

Schumer and other leading Democrats have made clear that dismantling the Supreme Court’s independence will be a top Democratic priority should the party win control of the legislative and executive branches this November. Soon after withdrawing from the presidential race, Joe Biden proposed a set of “reforms” to the Supreme Court, including term limits and a “binding” ethics code, which both Schumer and Kamala Harris immediately signed on to.

Following up on Biden’s proposals, Congressional Democrats, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Hank Johnson, have called for the addition of four justices to the Court – enough to overturn decisions by the Roberts Court that they don’t like.

As Constitutional lawyers David Rivkin, Jr., and Andrew Grossman observed in a recent Wall Street Journal column, the Democrats’ determination to “bring the justices to heel” is the outgrowth of a series of rulings that struck down as unconstitutional a series of executive orders by both Presidents Obama and Biden. These included Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” and Biden’s employer vaccine mandate, moratorium on tenant evictions, and student-loan forgiveness plan.

To complement these judicial reforms, Schumer has proposed to eliminate another check on partisan governance, the Senate filibuster. While Schumer’s proposal would apply only to voting rights and abortion legislation, there is no reason, as New York Post columnist Rich Lowry points out, that Democrats wouldn’t extend it to cover such matters as granting statehood to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, aimed at essentially securing their long-term control of Congress.

Democrats’ dominating aim, like that of AMLO, is to eliminate institutional obstacles to the enactment of policies favored by a democratically elected president (possibly even without the consent of Congress, if it can be circumvented through executive orders that the courts won’t overturn). This would destroy the American Founders’ entire scheme of separation of powers, checks and balance, judicial independence, and a Bill of Rights, which was aimed at promoting deliberative rather than plebiscitary governance and securing individual rights embodied in the Constitution.

The American Constitution has survived for 236 years with only one interruption of peaceful governance under it. By contrast, Mexico’s political history (like that of the rest of Latin America) since independence has been largely one of a series of civil wars alternating with despotisms, combined with rampant gang violence. Citizens of that country, along with its neighbors to the south, often seek desperately (by legal or illegal means) to gain residence in the United States. For obvious reasons, rather little movement occurs in the opposite direction.

Americans should be extremely wary of following Mexico’s lead in trading in our Constitutional order for anything resembling one based on, as James Madison described it, “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

David Lewis Schaefer is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at College of the Holy Cross.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

The AMAC Action Logo

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Donate Now
Share this article:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
32 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PaulE
PaulE
2 months ago

Warning signs like this have been flashing bright red, that the American people should have been paying close attention to but sadly have not been, in a number of countries around the world run by socialists or communists for the last 25 to 30 years. Otherwise, we would NOT be the place we’re in right now, with the republic at great risk. Americans should have also paid attention to what happened in each of those countries afterward to see the real-world impact of such policies. It’s not a pretty picture by any stretch of the imagination. Sadly again, most of us in this country erroneously think “It can’t happen here” only to find out far too late that yes it can if you simply sit by and allow it.

The Democrat Party, which is effectively America’s Socialist Party, will enact many, if not ALL, the same so-called reforms as AMLO, Lula in Brazil and other socialist leaders around the globe have already put in place to achieve the same goal. What do you think packing the Supreme Court and terms limits on SC justices is being pitched for? It’s to eliminate the last judicial roadblock standing in the way of what the Democrats have planned for this country. They have already done a great job of filling half the federal judgeships with people who make decisions based not on the law as defined by the Constitution of the United States, but what is in favor of the Democrat Party.

in the case of AMLO, he has been very public and vocal about enacting these so-called “judicial reforms” before he hands Mexico over his long-time protégée, who will be the new President of Mexico when he leaves. Hugo Chavez did essentially the same thing in Venezuela before handing over that country to Maduro. There are many other examples of the same reforms being rammed into place to gut the restraints that protect the average citizens from a repressive style government.

Theresa Coughlin
Theresa Coughlin
2 months ago

If what Mexico call “judicial reform” is anything like what the democrats want to do to this country’s judiciary and if the democrats (God forbid!) get their way and “reform” the judiciary , this country is DOOMED because the democrats will be in power forever and their policies will wreck this country.

anna hubert
anna hubert
2 months ago

“Democrats” are poised to “win” They are counting on it and am sure they have a list of reforms longer than their overreaching arm ready . They don’t give a fig about constitution and the law. There be new rules that will make those cheering them on cringe.

Spitfire?
Spitfire?
2 months ago

IF HARRIS,WALZ,OBAMA and Schumer win = Welcome to Russia!

Doreen Welch
Doreen Welch
2 months ago

What can any one citizen (I) do but vote and pray?
This is a true question.

Rob citizenship--
Rob citizenship--
2 months ago

This is a very important article ,the situation in Mexico regarding judicial reform should be of interest to Americans who would prefer to have such changes favor stability and not be subject to political pressures . The Founders of the United States regarding the judiciary and stability set a standard that makes a great deal of sense . It requires thought to determine the value of what James Madison said concerning ” the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” . There are examples in this article, and examples throughout history that indicate this system here in America is something to be appreciated.

Robert Zuccaro
Robert Zuccaro
2 months ago

Dictators like to use the word “reform” to hide the true meaning… like calling Democrats “progressive”.

lothar baier
lothar baier
2 months ago

When the NSDAP came to power in 1933 the first item on the agenda was a process that was called “gleichschaltung” or roughly translated rectification .
first all judges were required to take a oath pledging loyalty to adolf hitler , judges that were communists , social democrats or not in line with the party were removed from the bench and replaced with loyalists , the press was next in line to follow as well as police , educators and of course the military .
The democrats pursue and have been pursuing a similar process but at a slower pace , the process is near complete as far as the media and hollywood concerns but in order to achieve full control they have to seize control of the judiciary which means controlling the supreme court !
This is exactly what “judicial reform ” democrats are aiming at is supposed to accomplish. while some aspects like term limits for judges are harmless and even beneficial to both side other aspects like expanding the court are highly partisan and detrimental to the court as it would set off a tit for tat expansion war . if democrats add 6 judges which under president harris arguably be liberals and kill the filibuster to get them confirmed than the next time republicans control the senate and WH they might be compelled to add 7 or 8 or why not 9 judges ?

Jackie
Jackie
2 months ago

They have gone to mob ruled justice. Don’t these people ever look at there own history of patrons and corrupt government.Stupid is as stupid does!

Jim Johnson
Jim Johnson
2 months ago

That one exception was the American Civil war, and most of the Democrat controlled states started it. And the Democrats in the North, the Copperheads, aided and abetted that cause. The Democrats have always believed in political violence when frustrated. A brief look at U.S. history makes it blatantly obvious. No Democrat, as near as I can tell, takes their oath of office seriously. To them, it appears to be merely words necessary to take office, words without meaning.

carol exposito
carol exposito
2 months ago

Democrats have had a streak of authoritarianism since the beginning of time. They’re getting a little too ornery since the election of the Black Messiah who won’t leave Washington D.C. like every other president has done since the beginning of the Republic. Could it be he hasn’t finished all his terms yet?

Patty Berry
Patty Berry
2 months ago

This is an excellent article and should be seen by everyone studying government and economics. Civics has to be returned to school curriculum and taught from the wisdom and integrity of our Founders or the world will be in trouble. We have to get back to honesty and integrity in this country with the courage to do what is right from the spiritual standpoint our Founders used realizing how important it is to have a solid foundation of fairness and justice.

Summer Sands
Summer Sands
2 months ago

Solution to the problem – STOP SUPPORTING THESE CRIMINAL COUNTRIES AND THEIR DICTATORIAL REGIMES. Why should American Money go toward supporting these garbage countries that are doing everything they can to destroy OUR COUNTRY?

Pat R
Pat R
2 months ago

How do we get term limits for Congress? Seems that’s the first and best solution. The Dems ignoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights (rule of law), that were drawn up to keep us a We The People republic, will only be corrected/stopped by eliminating Representatives and Senators having a career (often a lifetime one) in Congress.

Nunya
Nunya
2 months ago

I am truly amazed at the number of ‘STUPID PEOPLE’ who call themselves Americans. Harris is the promoter of all the fools.

John Shipway
John Shipway
2 months ago

Well, I suppose Mr. Shaeffer would like the US to take its usual actions when another country decides to initiate sovereign changes to their own nation so look forward to good ole’ Uncle Sam over-arming some neighbor of Mexico, say Honduras and using poor old Honduras as a proxy initiating warfare against Mexico for daring to enact legislation that wasn’t preapproved by the great “Massuh”, the dying hegemon, the United States of America.
Thats the way the US operates, ask any Libyan, Iraqi, Afghan, Syrian, Ukranian, Korean and on and on and on.
The Muslims have one thing right. The US is indeed the “Great Satan”

Greg
Greg
2 months ago

Real Clear Politics has a way of posting the most useless rants by extremists on the MAGA far right, like this one.
This terrorist criminal court and John Roberts are on their own MAGA agenda. It includes most prominently far right members of the Catholic Church, like Leonard Leo and members of the church hierarchy, who want to force their theocratic rule on the rest of the us.
The church faithful have left due to their extremism and pedophilia, leaving this rotted corpse of church radicals to animate their six Catholic puppets on the Court.
I would say these reforms proposed by Congress don’t even address the problem. Gorchuch may well be threatening l a judicial coup with a MAGA army in a back handed “be careful!” quip.
Pres Biden has the power to arrest and summarily remove them from the Court. Do something that matters for once Joe. Use the immunity ruling, from this very court, to arrest and incarcerate them. Use their outrageous ruling against them. Save democracy.

Syria Flag
New U.S. citizens recite the pledge of allegiance during a special naturalization ceremony on the Hollywood Sign Terrace at historic Griffith Observatory on October 21, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ceremony was the first naturalization ceremony held on the grounds of the iconic Griffith Observatory which opened to the public in 1935.
Trump Supporters on Jan. 6 2021. Trump Supporters were marching to the Capitol Hill on January 6th in 2021 in Washington DC USA.

Stay informed! Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter.

"*" indicates required fields

32
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Subscribe to AMAC Daily News and Games