In an interesting development, a “mob” of more than 200 protesters stormed the Senate a few days ago. No, not the US Senate, but the Senate of the United Mexican States, Estados Unitos Mexicanos, in Ciudad Mexico. Why? They were protesting the Senado de la Republica’s vote to reform the nations’ judiciary system.

Indeed, the Senate was forced to flee their chamber and assemble in a different location!

Why?

The reforms have been condemned as evil, dangerous, jeopardizing the judiciary’s independence, threatening the rule of law, destroying the economy, and – most interesting – undemocratic. The constitutional amendment (the reforms) passed the lower house of Congress by 359-135, and the Senado by 86-41, a supermajority required for amending the constitution. Unlike in Yankee-land (the Colossus of the North: USA), the 32 Mexican States apparently do not have to ratify this.

What is so horrific? It changes the political appointment of judges at all levels, up to the Supreme Court, which is based largely on seniority, to direct election of all judges by the people. Those supporting this, including the outgoing President (AMLO) and the incoming President (who takes office in October), claim that this is increasing democracy. How very strange? Direct election promotes democracy?

The major protestors and objectors to this have been a coalition of serving and retired judges, judicial system employees (who went on strike along with serving judges!), and many lawyers. Even more telling, both the Trudeau regime in Canada and Uncle Joe’s regime in DC have spoken out strongly against the reforms. Both of which are known to be in favor of near hyper-democracy! How could Mexico’s Congress do this? Impose a judicial tyranny!?

The backbone of the constitutional reform calls for the first-ever election by popular vote of more than 6,500 judges and magistrates, including the Supreme Court.In the Americas, only Bolivia has a similar system. (Obviously, this proves it is a form of Communism, though Venezuela and Cuba do not do this!) The reform also reduces the number of Supreme Court judges to nine from 11, cuts their terms to 12 years, abolishes a minimum age requirement of 35, and halves necessary work experience to five years. How unprofessional!

By the way, 22 US States elect their supreme court justices by either partisan or nonpartisan elections, which is apparently considered acceptable as a part of a “republican government” as required by the US Constitution. Another 11 have retention elections:whereby appointed (or elected) justices and judges must be approved by a majority of votes cast in a general election to stay in office for another term. Even more (40) elect lower-court judges. Only 7 States do NOT choose any judges by popular election. We can assume that even Uncle Joe’s controllers do not consider this to be evil the way they believe Mexico’s new system is.

Mexico once did elect judges, from 1857 to 1917, when the Diaz regime (in essence a quasi-military dictatorship disguised as a republic) replaced it with appointed judges, top-down rather than bottom (voters) up.

AMLO and the incoming president (and the voters in June which gave their party a supermajority in both houses of Congress) believe this is necessary because of massive corruption and nepotism, together with influence peddling and selling justice. Problems common to many Hispanic heritage countries. In Mexico, many believe that the judicial system is allied or even under the control of the cartels and the powerful elites in Ciudad Mexico. Since this reform was proposed before the June elections, it appears that the people are strongly in favor of the reforms.

Libertarians have often pointed out that the appointment of judges and justices by the politicians – even those who supposedly represent the voters – is less than optimum. (To be tactful.) The fact that the judges and their staffs are paid by those same politicians using money stolen from taxpayers and have a near monopoly on “administering justice” makes the system even more a tool of government and less a tool of true justice.

Direct, popular election does help a little bit, even though it opens up the doors for more issues of corruption and influence. Exactly the problem of democracy in general: two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper.

And the idea that letting people directly vote for judges certainly seems in no way to be significantly increasing the corruption and other problems plaguing Mexico’s judiciary. Much less risking destroying democracy, the economy, or threatening the rule of law. Having judges actually go on strike instead of acting on behalf of the people they are supposed to be serving seems to be a good indicator of just how corrupt the Mexican justice system is now.

And as interested and concerned observers, the fact that both DC and Ottawa are opposed? Frosting on the cake!

An afterword: The States, too, need judicial reform, and the kind of reform NOT being pushed by the Woke and Democratic Party hacks. While a key is who supports the judges and staffs – and how that support is provided, even more important is that power needs to be taken away from federal and even centralized State courts and restored to the local judges and especially the local juries to decide both civil and criminal cases. Retention and recall elections and curbing both the power and ubiquity of ennobled lawyers (“Esquire” is a noble title, at heart) is another important aspect.

But judicial reform is not enough: reform of laws in general – reducing the power of government at all levels – is even more important. Local, elected judges can be as corrupt and nepotic as any other judge – and like all of us, judges and their support staff need to eat: protecting their paycheck is always going to warp their independence.