Electing Judges in Mexico? It’s a Bad Idea.
But, consistent with his systematic attacks on checks and balances, his project to elect judges could lead to the death of democracy in Mexico.
. . .
Ms. Singh is a professor at Stanford Law School and the executive director of the school’s Rule of Law Impact Lab. Ms. Garcia is an expert adviser to the lab.
https://law.stanford.edu/rule-of-law-impact-lab/#slsnav-our-focus :
Democracy is in decline around the world. Governments elected to power with populist agendas are increasingly adopting authoritarian tactics. There are striking similarities in the methods deployed to subvert democracy. These methods typically include compromising electoral integrity, undermining judicial independence, and quashing free expression and dissent. The Stanford Law School Rule of Law Impact Lab studies and uses legal tools to counter core threats to democracy and to promote democratic renewal worldwide.
Incredible
I mean, elections (in bourgeoise and parliamentary "democracies") are actually anti-democratic. They are nothing more than a method for the bourgeoise to select members of their class to rule the country which is why socialist theorists have spent so much time and energy arguing against parliamentarianism. But I doubt this is what the liberal writer here means.
Yeah. The checks and balances they support are what's anti-democratic. As James Madison wrote, and as @emizeko@hexbear.net has posted before:
In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
Gonna say something controversial, but I don't think judges should be elected. At least, they shouldn't only be elected.
What I mean is, being a judge (at least in the current state of things) is something that requires a lot of technical knowledge, and this should be attested through some kind of examination, at the very least. I think the same of many other kinds of government officials, as well. What I think could work is submitting to elections those approved in specific examination. Ideally, we'd also be able to remove from office any judge through vote, at any time. And, of course, there should be no room for high ranking politicians handpicking people for office, as well, as it happens where I live, in some cases.
I express this opinion as someone who has worked closely to the judicial system. Of course, I'm open to changing my mind if someone wants to express their opinion.
As everyone here knows, I am supremely stupid
but I'll try to address this to my knowledgeWhat I mean is, being a judge (at least in the current state of things) is something that requires a lot of technical knowledge, and this should be attested through some kind of examination, at the very least. I think the same of many other kinds of government officials, as well.
This is actually pretty common among Communist Party organizational theory. Direct Democracy isn't always the best, but neither is endless beaurocracy, thus a balance must be reached. This is where the concept of the Mass Line and Democratic Centralism in practice coalesce, with the Mass Line maintaining the will of the people while DemCent maintains unity in action. I doubt you'll see too much pushback here, it's quite similar to the CPC process to my knowledge.
To anyone who suggests that just electing judges is a good idea, I refer Roy Moore, and the Alabama Supreme Court.
Electing judges often goes very poorly. Then again, I'm not a fan of states in general, so maybe I'm biased.
I could see judges only being elected by people who have passed the bar exam for wherever their jurisdiction is going to be. In other words, judges are elected by lawyers and this acts as a sort of peer review.
This could end up causing other problems, though. It could result in a class of elites who are financially gatekeepers, yet have the power to implement legislation over the people. A lot of politicians are lawyers. Changes to the bar exam to make it easier or harder to become a lawyer in order to control who votes.
Something like having lawyers appoint judges but everyday citizens can veto or recall judges is another possibility.
Good News! Alaska figured out the best way to do it:
https://public.courts.alaska.gov/web/forms/docs/pub-28.pdf
TLDR: A merit based process where candidates are rated by whomever wants to take the time to rate them (mostly lawyers), then a round of interviews with a judicial council (made up of three members of the public and three members of the Bar), judicial council considers scores and interview performance, eliminates lacking candidates (Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court is tiebreaker if council is split on whether to eliminate a candidate), then advances remaining names to the governor who must pick one of the remaining candidates unless there are less than three candidates, in which case the process starts all over. Appointed judges have to face retention elections every few years, where their name is literally put on the November ballot and if they get less that 50% approval they get removed. This applies to all appointed judges, even those on the appellate courts.
You're good. You're actually in favor of more democracy (instant recall elections).
I can't find it now, and I could be wrong - all of the articles I get on Google are U.S. condemnations that don't have many details from the actual law - but I was under the impression that the reform would be something like Bolivia's system, where candidates come from a preapproved list to ensure that they're qualified.
Any system will have its drawbacks. So will this one. I've seen my share of nightmarish judicial elections in the U.S., too (like men's rights assholes running to be judges in family court), but, like, that's the thing about elections.
You could simply have passing an exam/test as a requirement to be a candidate in the election, in fact I'd say most influential positions would need that. For example, it should be required for the general secretary of a communist party to have good knowledge of theory, to ensure that we could have the candidates pass an exam.
That's more or less what I meant. I'm not so sure about what you said of requiring attestation for general secretary, mostly because of what the curriculum for that would be and who would be in charge of defining said curriculum. Admittedly, though, I haven't given this topic much thought
if there were consequences for being such a massive piece of shit that most everybody wants to strip you of your power over the lives of others, we wouldn't be blessed with the objective jurisprudence of our Lord and Savior, Clarence Thomas.
no, better to have the power rest in the hands of exclusive organizations with massive economic barriers to entry.
to preserve our democracy against the forces of... democracy.
"More democracy is bad for democracy"