Mexico’s Judicial Reform – A Comedy of Errors
Ah, Mexico! The land of tequila, tacos, and now, a sprinkle of judicial reform drama that could make for a fine Netflix series. Just when you thought it was safe to assume the adults were in charge, in pop the clowns wielding a gavel! The Supreme Court of Justice in Mexico has just handed down a decision that could have the plot twists of a soap opera—only without the commercial breaks.
So, let’s dive in! On a rather heated Tuesday, the Court dismissed attempts to halt the judicial reform, leaving many thinking, “What reform? My mom hasn’t called to explain!” Only seven out of the required eleven ministers found it in their hearts to support the claim that the reform should bite the dust. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in those meetings—was there popcorn involved, or were they simply throwing shade at each other?
In an articulate fashion, the court noted that without a qualified majority of eight votes, the judicial reform was left standing taller than a piñata. And what do we know about piñatas? They’re often filled with surprises—much like this reform itself. Though seven ministers raised their hands in agreement, it was more a “Yes, we’ll have a pint” than “Let’s bag this reform.” The phrase “the decision does not imply that any statement is made” really makes you wonder: do they even believe in their own judicial wizardry?
Now, the opponents of this reform—hey, they’re not going quietly. The National Action Party, Institutional Revolutionary Party, and others have stepped up, saying, “Can we talk about the implications here?” It’s like watching a hockey game where everyone’s in a brawl, except instead of sticks, they’re wielding legal jargon.
Picture this: outside the court, thousands of judges and court workers waving flags and chanting passionately, “The judiciary is standing, it is standing.” Not the kind of ‘standing’ you expect in a courtroom, but more akin to a sold-out concert crowd ready to rage. Judge Getsemaní Hernández was there, asserting, “If this reform isn’t stopped, democracy is lost!” Quick question: was he referring to just the judiciary or to the entirety of modern civilization? Might want to narrow that down, buddy!
And let’s not forget our student hero, René Hernández, bravely flaunting a black toga—which seems quite suitable for a protest, right? His justification? “We are defending democracy, we are defending our sovereignty.” While I appreciate the sentiment, let’s make sure we don’t use sovereignty as a fancy word for ‘who gets to be judge’—talk about muddled definitions!
But here’s where the plot thickens: the ambitious reform was put forth by none other than former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a man who seems to enjoy the idea of a judiciary makeover as much as I enjoy a surprise cake! Backed by his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, it’s like a buddy cop movie where both partners hilariously misjudge the situation. They insist this reform will “cleanse” the judiciary, while others claim it threatens democracy itself. One group sees a righteous broom; another sees a bulldozer.
Among the proposed changes, one hotly debated point surrounds the idea of judges being elected by popular vote. Now, isn’t that just a recipe for reality TV? “Who Wants to Be a Judge?” could be the next big hit! You can already hear it now: “I’ll take one taco and a judgment on that!” Critics say this paves the way for political maneuverings and influences that make you cringe. Can you imagine a courtroom filled with contestants who were once on stage in the “If You Laugh, You Lose” game?
On the other hand, López Obrador and Sheinbaum stand by the notion that any reform will combat the ever-looming specter of corruption. So, let me get this straight: we’ll solve corruption by letting the masses elect judges? Sure, if we’re also handing out participation trophies! It’s a fine line between empowering the people and turning the judiciary into a circus.
But the story doesn’t end there! Resignations are flying out like they’ve hit a jackpot in Vegas. Eight ministers, including some big names, announced they’d be taking a bow, all in compliance with a reform that could put a halt to benefits for those not sticking around to fight. Dramatic, isn’t it? It’s almost like watching a musical where everyone just ghosts the final act!
In conclusion, while the Supreme Court wades through this judicial quagmire, we’re left with a baffling question: what about the people? Are they fully in the loop, or blissfully unaware like a contestant on a cooking show who didn’t read the recipe? And as the pro-reform and anti-reform forces clash, I can almost hear Shakespeare’s ghosts whispering, “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.” Only, let’s hope those dogs aren’t the same ones elected to the judicial benches!
So grab your popcorn, folks; this show is just getting started. Stay tuned while Mexico’s judicial reform saga unfolds, because who could possibly resist the chaos?
MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice on Tuesday dismissed actions seeking to stop judicial reform after the required votes of ministers to declare its unconstitutionality were not achieved.
Only seven of the 11 ministers of the high court supported the draft ruling that contemplated the invalidity of part of the reform and suspended the election of judges by popular vote.
In a statement, the Court noted that although the majority of seven ministers ruled in favor of the admissibility of the actions against the reform, “since there was not the qualified vote of eight votes necessary to invalidate various precepts contemplated in the draft resolution, the plenary session of the Highest Constitutional Court rejected the concepts of invalidity.”
The high court clarified that the decision “does not imply that any statement is made” about the validity of the reform.
The judicial reform was challenged before the Court by the opposition parties National Action, Institutional Revolutionary, Citizen Movement and Democratic Union of Coahuila, and the deputies of the Congress of the central state of Zacatecas who requested the annulment of the initiative.
Now the government and Congress have a clear path to carry out the reform that contemplates a renewal of the judicial power without precedent in the recent history of Mexico. Prior to its application, the initiative unleashed a crisis due to protests and strikes carried out by thousands of judges and court employees.
As the session progressed, thousands of judges, court workers, lawyers and students gathered outside the high court in the center of the Mexican capital. Between Mexican flags and shouting “the judiciary is standing, it is standing”, the protesters demanded the annulment of the reform that, they claim, threatens the independence of public powers and democracy, which has been ruled out by Sheinbaum .
“We are in resistance to defend the judicial power of the federation, but above all of constitutionality,” said Judge Getsemaní Hernández, who recognized that if the reform is not stopped “the division of powers is lost, democracy is lost.”
Hernández rejected one of the arguments put forward by Sheinbaum and pro-government congressmen that the extensive restructuring of the judiciary was supported in the last presidential elections in June, and indicated that “people are not aware, they do not know” of the reform. “They are taking advantage of the ignorance and lack of knowledge of the people,” he added.
Dressed in a black toga and raising a Mexican flag, among the crowd was René Hernández, a 31-year-old law student, who considered the Court debate “historic for the country” and justified his participation in the protest by assuring that “we are “By defending democracy, we are defending our sovereignty and defending our ideals.”
The ambitious reform was promoted by former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador — who for years maintained a struggle with the Court and some magistrates who backed down some of his reforms — and has had the unrestricted support of his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, since that the government took office last month.
In the draft sentence prepared by Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara, the invalidation of the mass removal of judges and magistrates prior to their renewal was proposed, which would be carried out by popular vote in June 2025 and 2027. This is one of the key points of the reform that the Congress, with a pro-government majority, approved in mid-September.
The proposal only maintained the election of the ministers of the high court and the members of the Disciplinary Court and the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court by popular vote, the austerity measures, the extinction of the trusts of the judicial power, and the creation of a body of administration.
In her fight with the Court, Sheinbaum stated on Monday that she is not willing to negotiate “what the people have decided and is already part of the Constitution,” and stated that the ministers “cannot be above the popular voice.” The president announced that if part of the reform is invalidated, she already has “a plan,” but did not offer details.
Along those same lines, the ruling majority in Congress approved last week a reform to shield the changes made to the Magna Carta and prevent the modifications from being stopped in the courts.
The session of the high court takes place less than a week after eight ministers, including its president Norma Piña, presented their resignation in the Senate. This will become effective in August 2025, after the new members of the body are elected.
The ministers decided to resign in compliance with the reform that provides that judges who are not going to compete in the elections in the middle of next year must resign so as not to lose their job benefits.
The decision was not supported by his colleagues Yasmín Esquivel, Lenia Batres and Ortiz, who will remain in their positions.
Esquivel, Ortiz and Batres, who are identified as close to the government, announced a few weeks ago that they would participate in the judicial elections.
The reform of the judicial power has been criticized by specialists and the governments of the United States and Canada who stated that the modifications would put judicial independence at risk and would represent a blow to the system of checks and balances of the Executive in Mexico.
Critics of the reform assure that with the election of judges by popular vote the courts will be filled with people related to the ruling party and with little experience, and the way will be opened for politicians and criminals to influence the decisions of the courts.
But López Obrador and Sheinbaum have defended the reform, ensuring that it will help cleanse the judiciary of corruption and consolidate an “authentic democracy” in Mexico by allowing the people to elect their public servants.
E lines, the political landscape is thickening with the tension of competing ideals and goals. On one side, you have the government led by López Obrador and Sheinbaum, advocating for a sweeping change they argue will “cleanse” the judiciary and bring it closer to the people. Their supporters likely see this not only as a necessary reform but a direct response to the perceived disconnect between the judiciary and the citizens it serves.
Conversely, the opposition and concerned members of the judiciary frame this as a perilous power grab—a potential erosion of checks and balances that could lead to an undermining of democracy as we know it. With public sentiment and awareness indicated as critical components of the discussion, the quoted assertions about the general populace’s lack of knowledge regarding the reform add an interesting dynamic. This reflects a broader concern: if citizens are not adequately informed or engaged, how can they truly claim to support or oppose such drastic reforms?
In the midst of this contentious atmosphere, we witness not only the legal and political maneuvering but also the cultural implications of such changes. The imagery of the protestors waving flags and chanting is evocative of collective societal action, highlighting that this is more than just a legislative item—it’s a fundamental debate about what governance and justice should look like in Mexico.
The fate of the judiciary hinges not just on the votes of a few ministers but also on the will and the voice of the people. If the majority is misinformed or disengaged, reforms with deep impacts could pass under the radar, taking the judiciary—and with it, the balance of power in the country—down an uncertain path.
As the Supreme Court navigates these turbulent waters, the rhetoric is charged, and the stakes impossibly high. But amid the chaos, there lies an opportunity for an engaged electorate to emerge—a public that knows its rights and pushes for the kind of judiciary it deserves. With all that in play, indeed, it is a show worth watching. Grab your popcorn; this judicial saga promises twists and turns that will reverberate for years to come.
