Some people, including three of the Supreme Court judges, are calling it an attempted “coup”. Unsurprisingly, Washington’s fingerprints are all over this.
On Tuesday, Claudia Sheinbaum was sworn in as Mexico’s first ever female president, and she already has her work cut out. Having chosen not to invite Spain’s King Felipe VI to her inauguration over his refusal five years ago to apologise for Spain’s colonial excesses in Mexico, Sheinbaum now has to grapple with a diplomatic crisis with Madrid.
But the biggest problem lies closer to home with a Supreme Court that is determined to derail, or at least delay for as long as possible, the now-former AMLO government’s most important constitutional reform. And in that endeavour it can count on the support of the US government.
For the first time ever, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has decided to submit a constitutional reform for review. The reform in question involves a root-and-branch restructuring of the judicial system and it has already passed both legislative houses with the necessary two-thirds majorities. It is bitterly opposed by members of Mexico’s opposition parties, the judiciary, big business lobbies, and the US and Canadian governments.
One “Last Bullet”
Yesterday (Oct. 3), the SCJN admitted an appeal against the government’s judicial reform program by a majority of eight votes to three. With this ruling, the Supreme Court hands over the dispute consideration to one of the judges that voted in favour of the resolution. The court could also issue a stay, essentially suspending the constitutional amendment. The Mexican financial daily El Financiero described the ruling as “the last bullet” (interesting choice of words) against the now former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s “Plan-C” reforms.
Said reforms seek to radically reconfigure the way Mexico’s justice system works. Most controversially, judges and magistrates at all levels of the system will no longer be appointed but instead be elected by local citizens in elections scheduled to take place in 2025 and 2027. Sitting judges, including Supreme Court jusges, will have to win the people’s vote if they want to continue working. New institutions will be created to regulate procedures as well as combat the widespread corruption that has plagued Mexican justice for many decades.
This, insists the AMLO government, is all necessary because two of the main structural causes of corruption, impunity and lack of justice in Mexico are: a) the absence of true judicial independence of the institutions charged with delivering justice; and b) the ever widening gap between Mexican society and the judicial authorities that oversee the legal processes at all levels of the system, from the local and district courts to Mexico’s Supreme Court.
There is some truth to this. And making judges electorally accountable may go some way to remedying these problems, but it also poses a threat to judicial independence and impartiality, of which there is already scant supply. As some critics have argued, with AMLO’s Morena party already dominating both the executive and the legislative, there is a danger that it will end up taking control of all three branches of government — just like the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, that held uninterrupted power in the country for 71 years (1929-2000).
That said, as I wrote in my previous piece on this issue, the AMLO government has the constitutional right to pursue these reforms, enjoys the support of roughly two-thirds of the Mexican public in doing so, and is following established legal procedures.
A Fierce Clash
Yesterday’s session in the Supreme Court saw an unusually fierce clash of views among the sitting judges. The Supreme Court President Norma Piña claimed that the law is clear that its members can analyse acts that may violate judicial independence. While the majority in favour argued that the Court is not yet making a “substantive” decision on the reform, the three judges that voted against the resolution warned that a “coup” is under way.
Judge Lenia Batres Guadarrama argued that the Court is “arrogating to itself powers it does not have”, such as the power to submit changes to the Constitution approved by the Legislative Branch for review. In doing so, she said, it is violating “the principle of constitutional supremacy, as well as the division of powers and the Constitutional Rule of Law”:
“The SCJN would be carrying out… a real coup d’état by trying to place under constitutional control the work of the reforming power, which has participated in the process of constitutional reform in matters of the Judiciary in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 39 of the Constitution, which establishes that all public power emanates from the people and is instituted for their benefit”.
Another judge, Yasmín Esquivel Mossa, described the court’s proposed resolution as a “precursor to a constitutional coup”:
“The Court wants to ignore the reforming power of the Constitution. It wants to create an unacceptable constitutional crisis, sending the message that this Court can overturn a constitutional reform in an administrative procedure provided for in the organic law of the Judicial Branch of the Federation.”
Senate president Gerardo Fernandez Norona, a member of the governing Morena party, said the Supreme Court “has proven its factional nature, assuming itself as the supreme power, above the legislative power, the executive power and, above all, the sovereign power: the people of Mexico.”
US Fingerprints
After passing both legislative houses in mid-September, the AMLO government’s proposed judicial reform program was supposed to be done and dusted by now. But a powerful minority of stakeholders within the country, including business lobbies, legacy media and opposition parties, are determined to sabotage it, and they have chosen the perfect moment to do so: during the first few days of Sheinbaum’s mandate.
Unsurprisingly, Washington’s fingerprints are all over this. As readers may recall from our previous piece on this Mexican showdown, in late August, the US Ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, sent a very public communique warning that the proposed judicial reforms could have serious consequences for US trade relations with its biggest trade partner.
Days earlier, the Council of Global Enterprises, representing 60 multinational corporations with operations in Mexico, expressed their “grave” concerns about the dampening effect the reforms could have on investment in Mexico. The lobbying group’s members include Walmart, AT&T, Cargill, General Motors, Pepsico, VISA, Exxon Mobil, Bayer and Fedex.
This showdown is not just about electing judges. The judicial reform is one of over a dozen proposed reforms that the government intends to enact in in the areas of energy, mining, fracking, GM foods, labour laws, housing, indigenous rights, women’s rights, universal health care (imagine that, US readers!) and water management. And some of those reforms are likely to affect the ability of corporations, both domestic and foreign, to stuff their pockets.
While Ambassador Salazar toned down his meddling after AMLO took the largely symbolic step of putting his government’s relations with the US and Canadian Embassy’s on ice, the US government has continued to interfere. Just days ago, the National Endowment of Democracy, which has spent the past six years financing political opposition groups in Mexico, published an article in its Journal of Democracy subtly titled “Mexico’s Democratic Disaster”. Here’s how it begins:
The country’s outgoing president is determined to bulldoze Mexico’s judicial system. His attack on the rule of law is even worse than people realize.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), with only two weeks left in office, signed into law a raft of constitutional amendments that will remove nearly seven-thousand state and federal judges and replace them with popularly elected ones. The amendments approved on September 15 — just before his protégé, Claudia Sheinbaum, takes the helm — are a last-ditch effort in his longstanding plan to undermine democracy in Mexico.
What the article doesn’t mention, just as Salazar didn’t mention in his communique, is that many US judges are elected, albeit not those on the Supreme Court. As I noted in my previous piece, there are other elements of US hypocrisy on display — for example, the fact that over the past year-and-a-half the outgoing Biden administration has tried just about every lawfare trick in the book to get Trump behind bars, or at least disqualified from the ballot, to no avail.
The Biden Administration is now trying to fast track its own reforms of the US Supreme Court, including the imposition of term limits for SC judges as well as a constitutional amendment to “make clear there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.” While the reform is extremely unlikely to pass As the Supreme Court blog notes, the fact that constitutional amendments in the US require a two-thirds vote of both houses, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states renders “passage of such an amendment extremely unlikely, if not all but impossible, at this time.”
As if the NED article wasn’t enough, the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has agreed to hold a hearing on November 12 to hear the complaints of the Mexico’s National Association of Circuit Magistrates and District Judges (JUFED) regarding the judicial reform. At the hearing, the delegation representing JUFED will be able to present its arguments for why the judicial reform represents a breach by the Mexican State of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights.
Opponents of the bill hope the IACHR will issue precautionary measures that nudge Claudia Sheinbaum’s new government into opening dialogue with the workers of the Judicial Branch of the Federation regarding this reform. The IACHR is an organ of the Organization of American States (OAS), which itself has long served as a tool of US hegemony on the American continent as well as a facilitator of coups such as the one that took place against Bolivia’s then-President Evo Morales in 2019.
What happens next will depend on Claudia Sheinbaum and the advice she will no doubt be getting from AMLO. The nuclear — and quite likely best — option will be to shut down the Supreme Court and replace most or all of its members. After all, there is little chance of Sheinbaum being able to advance the government’s reform agenda if Mexico’s Supreme Court is willing to break just about every rule in its own book to prevent her from doing so — especially if it enjoys the support of the OAS.
Such an act will no doubt draw even louder howls of protest that Mexico’s new government is bludgeoning democracy to death. But AMLO himself has already described the US’ role in this “strictly domestic matter of the Mexican State” as “unacceptable interference.” Also, in her defence Sheinbaum could simply point to the time in 1995 when the recently elected President Ernesto Zedillo, one of Mexico’s most neoliberal presidents, not only shut down the Supreme Court but also culled the number of its judges from 26 to 11 — with not even the slightest whimper of protest from Washington.
39 comments
Comments are closed.
So, about that “judicial independence” – – our un-elected versions are only responsible to those who put them there.
What could possibly be more ‘undemocratic’ than allowing the unwashed masses to elect the judges who administer their justice?
I fail to see how politicizing judiciary leads to less corrupted system. Or to one better at clarifying the law and at solving conflicts.
The only viable way to improve adjudication is to track appeals and sack judges when too many of their decisions change in the higher courts.
The only viable way to get rid of corruption is to get rid of wealth gaps. Policies, oversight and enforcement can only mitigate the problem.
Good points. But what would happen if you applied that right now to elected government officials at executive and legislative offices? Personally I’m agnostic regarding elections for the judicial branch because they could then be corruptted just as other elective offices hav been, and favor your idea of getting rib of wealth inequality. Oh and ridding Imperial interference.
Appointed judges are far from free of politics!
Agree on getting rid of wealth gaps but imagine the resistance to that, or maybe we don’t have to imagine.
I would like to suggest appointing judges by lottery. All qualified individuals names submitted, and chosen by random lot. That way no one gets to decide who the judge is.
I would also suggest that a criteria for qualifying based on previous decisions at lower levels. (I would suggest that legal scholars determine the exact criteria)
That’s a good idea! Because then the elites wouldn’t know who they need to bride and buy off, until the lottery chooses the judge. That would at least slow down the corruption. Of redirect it towards the lottery.
In the UK, laypeople sit as magistrates with minimal training, but with the assistance of qualified legal staff.
TBH, I really don’t see how we could do much worse/better* than Hector “The Hangman”.
*Delete as appropriate.
One more and perhaps a last step in Mexico’s long process of liberation from that Beast which has consumed at least half of Mexico’s rightful inheritance from Imperial Spain in the Americas, Mike Liston
The Imperial USians stole half of Imperial Mexico (just broken free from Imperial Spain) which had stolen the land from the Imperial Aztecs. The native peoples, long held powerless, still remain and at long last now may be benefiting to some degree from recent trends. History seems to be always about concentrated power versus distributed power. Power to the people, or something like that.
President elect Sheinbaum has proposed restrictions on mining in Mexico related to the approval of both open cut mining projects and access to water supplies necessary to mining.
Mexico is the world’s largest producer of silver. As the best conductor of electricity, silver will be required in increasing amounts for all electrification initiatives associated with necessary reductions in the use of fossil fuels, e.g. electric vehicles and solar panels. Increasing amounts of silver will also be required for the rise in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and the gargantuan data centres associated with them.
Many of the mining companies exploring, developing and mining silver in Mexico are Canadian owned, and some are US owned.
Many expert commentators have, and are, stating that there is already an increasing deficit in silver supply worldwide, even before policies proposed by Sheinbaum to effectively restrict mining are implemented.
It is therefore unsurprising that US and Canadian governments would seek to restrict or stop reforms proposed by the new Sheinbaum government.
After one of those Canadian mining companies was denied a permit for an open pit cyanide leach goldmining operation in our local biosphere reserve, that functions as the watershed here in the Cape region of Baja Sur, they promptly filed suit in Mexican court, winning the first couple of rounds before being shut down by the supreme court. Even though there was massive public opposition to the project, it looked for a while like they were going to prevail and be allowed to decimate a fragile tropical dry forest ecosystem.
No intention to sound snarky here, but I am curious: under the fabled Pacific Trade Partnership, how would such a case have been resolved? The extra-national route?
As Conor notes, it’s some brass for US officials to complain that Mexico will start holding elections for judges when the practice has such an obvious American precedent. I guess the real problem here is that “the wrong people” will get to vote …
Byline here is Nick Corbishley, not Conor. Credit where due.
(Granted, this sort of story is in Conor’s usual turf.)
Indeed, but my feeling is that Nick tends to produce longer pieces, more often focused on Europe. I may be wrong.
In any case, both produce outstanding work here at NC.
I tend to feel that when such luminaries of human rights and democracy as Walmart, AT&T, Cargill, General Motors, Pepsico, VISA, Exxon Mobil, Bayer, Fedex and the US goverment are opposing a new law, then it’s time to fully back that new law, you really don’t need too know much more.
As in: let your exemplars be known by who is most keenly against them.
When the Allende government came to power in Chile, the oligarchs weaponized the judiciary to block reforms, and left-wing members of the ruling party were arrested on minor charges, while right-wing members of the opposition party who led the assassination of General Schneider, who insisted that the military not intervene in politics, were released. And then, of course, came the real coup.
That is a very good point: many thanks. However, it seems that AMLO invested heavily in his relationship with the military. He did so partly by stinting on civil service pay and investment, so that resources could be transferred to the armed forces. In addition, he very quickly abandoned the tax reforms he had proposed during his 2018 campaign, which were intended to make the fiscal system more effective and progressive. This bought him the support of much of the higher bourgeoisie, but at the cost of keeping state revenues low. This, then, made the large transfer of resources to the armed forces that much more regressive and inefficient. The result has been continuing stagnation: the state lacks the means to invest whilst the quality of public services degrades; private profits are conserved and hoarded, but this increases inequality in what is already a very unequal society and flattens productivity growth. Increases in the minimum wage and the introduction of a new pensions system were offset (perhaps more than offset) by the deterioration in healthcare and other forms of public provision. Sheinbaum seems set to continue on this path – one which is susceptible to diminishing returns, especially as further wage growth is apparently not underwritten by comparable productivity growth. At some point diminishing returns might morph into a downward spiral: https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/amlo-mexico/; https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/06/01/mexico-from-amlo-to-sheinbaum/; https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/mexico-president-elect-claudia-sheinbaum-economic-agenda-for-inclusive-growth-by-santiago-levy-2024-06, etc.
Notice that even though NAFTA has contributed to a 625% export increase for Mexico since 1992, Mexican growth has been 25% slower than US growth. Mexican growth has been nearly the slowest in all Latin America since 1992:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1qtRj
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico as a percent of Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States & Exports of Goods and Services by Mexico as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, 1992-2023
(Indexed to 1992)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1qtRm
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico as a percent of Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States & Exports of Goods and Services by Mexico as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, 1992-2023
(Indexed to 1992)
Again, even though NAFTA has contributed to a 143% export increase for Mexico since 2000, Mexican growth has been 20% slower than US growth. Mexican growth has been nearly the slowest in all Latin America since 2000:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1uXws
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico as a percent of Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States & Exports of Goods and Services by Mexico as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, 2000-2023
(Indexed to 2000)
exports under nafta are a joke. nafta was for cheap labor and resource exploitation. mexico and its people got nothing out of them, except debt and poverty. the so called exports, were owned by western firms who shipped across the border parts for assembly, then shipped back to the u.s.a. for sale.
the only country that has gotten anything from free trade was china. they were smart enough to use the rope bill clinton provided for them, and protected their country.
https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/amlo-mexico/
I have to admit that I misunderstood AMLO. He wasn’t attacked because he was a progressive politician, but only because a small part of his policies went against the interests of the greedy oligarchs. He didn’t save Mexico and neither will his successor.
Let’s remember that Mexico sits right next to the US, and the US oligarchy will brook no major changes that negatively affect the vassal Mexican oligarchy through which it controls the country. AMLO shares much in common with Lula, both being cheated again and again in elections until they learnt to align more with the oligarchy. AMLO and his successor have a limited room for manoeuvre given the utterly vassalized and corrupted nature of the Mexican oligarchy.
The 1980s and the Third World Debt Crisis were a period when the US really gutted the limited independence of the South American nations, including Mexico.
Being able to submit a constitutional reform for judicial review, especially a reform that directly impacts the reviewing body, seems ridiculous, especially if that reform has already received the approval of all the other branches of government, along with that of the people themselves.
The more tenacious problem to me is it’s liable to lead to some form of the same problem we have in the US, which was somewhat mentioned in the article: sure we can elect all manner of judges here, but I’m not sure how much of a check on abuses it really is. For example, aside from really obvious and public facing individuals (Roy Moore of AL comes to mind), does anyone really know who these people are? Every election cycle I know I’ll see a raft of judges up for election, be it State Supreme Court or below, and I’ll have absolutely no clue who these people are, or how they’ve either decided cases in the past.
All of these positions are technically “non-partisan,” so they don’t even try to give you an indication of their ideological bent, and if they aren’t a brand new face with no actual judicial record to speak of, it’s still a monumental chore to actually track which cases they were involved in, how they decided, and what their position or reasoning was; other than looking up individual cases, how in the hell do you even do this, especially if you aren’t a lawyer?
This leaves the average person to rely on ads, shady websites or opaquely-funded resources that might be feeding you a gigantic load of shit to influence the bare handful of votes that actually come in one way or the other for these judicial elections – more than a few times I’ve tried to search specific names and races for judicial positions, been unable to come up with anything worth a damn, and just left the whole section blank.
Either way, it’s untenable. I don’t even have a suggestion of what could solve this.
Are there any other countries in the world other than the USA where most judges are elected?
I tend to find it bizarre but in Mexico’s case it may be a good short-term approach.
Any chance the military (which is basically run by the US) intervenes?
More interestingly, given Mexico’s history, will the Narco Cartels get involved, on either side? Shades of “Pancho” Villa!
A video history of the Mexican Revolution – Alejandro Lopez
the storm that swept mexico
Emiliano Zapata comes out as the major (if imperfect) hero as he didn’t seek power for himself. I recall an image of Sheinbaum with a picture of him in the background, maybe I was dreaming.
I want to see her with large photographs of the Magon Brothers in the background. Then we’ll know something serious is up.
“I want to see her with large photographs of the Magon Brothers in the background.” — ambrit
I had never heard of the Magon Brothers, so I did a little reading:
https://www.california-mexicocenter.org/the-life-and-legacy-of-ricardo-flores-magon/
https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-anarchist-who-authored-the-mexican-revolution
I suspect she wont be posing with any photos of them in the background.
An interview with then candidate Gloria Steinbaum by Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra:
EXCLUSIVE | Interview with Mexico’s Leading Presidential Contender Claudia Sheinbaum
Sheinbaum. Zelensky. Blinken/Yellen/Mayorkas/Hochstein…
Is this a pattern or is it just a coincidence I was not supposed to notice?
My working hypothesis is this: ruling through front-men is no longer working out so well.
The globalists are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. Doubtless Noam Zombsky willl say they are all really controlled by Lockheed-Martin…
¡Viva México!
Doubtless lots of U.S. (and Canadian mining) money sloshing around pobrecito México these days. On what planet are elite-selected judges and magistrates “workers” needing protection by international institutions from democratic accountability?
All of this shilling about the popular election of judges being “anti-democratic” is Orwellian, but unsurprising coming from the totalitarian oligarchy that America has become. Ever since the 2000 election was decided by a partisan, appointed Supreme Court, U.S. “democracy” has been on the ropes. We now have a non-election between a party of foul-mouthed election-deniers and a party that denies a democratic process to select their candidate. The U.S. is no democracy.
¡Viva AMLO! ¡Viva Claudia! ¡Viva México!
Viva
Maladroit work by US interests and USG to show such open opposition to a domestic Mexican reform –this kind of thing is better done informally. It suggests that El Norte has lost its competence and is sliding into a panicky response. Messing this one up could lead to a America’s own on-the-border crisis, almost like payback for Ukraine. Very dangerous.
Judges and magistrates will not be able to campaign, no political parties can be involved, private financing is not allowed, candidates will essentially have to meet qualifications (higher for Supreme Court, obviously) and also write an essay in order to “run”. I’m looking forward to voting!
Also judicial independence such as it is is primarily a bourgeoisie fiction intended to safeguard elite interests and Mexico, despite the best attempts by compradors and neoliberals over the past decades is not a liberal democracy and hasn’t been one for over 100 years. We had a social revolution which gave us an incredible Constitution!