Supreme Court President Norma Pina is among the eight. None of the eight will seek re-election in June 2025, says a statement from the court.
Most of the departures will take effect from August next year, according to the statement.
The protest is linked to a legal reform that the National Assembly adopted last month. The aim of the reform is to make the country the only one in the world where the voters themselves decide who will be judges. The scheme will apply at all levels, from district courts to the Supreme Court, and will come into force next year.
President Claudia Sheinbaum criticizes the eight’s decision to resign, accusing them of wanting to protect their own pension benefits rather than serve the country.
– If they leave now, they will get all their pension benefits. If they don’t leave now, they will no longer have pension benefits, and it involves large amounts, she says.
The reform was among former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s last tasks when he stepped down in September. He then said that the reform is needed to clean up what he called a rotten judiciary that serves the political and economic elite.
Critics fear that politics could become the driving force behind people’s choice of judges and that people’s choice of judges could be influenced by pressure from powerful drug cartels.
The change has triggered criticism from the other two North American countries – Canada and the USA.
#Mexicos #eleven #Supreme #Court #judges #resign #protest
**Interview with Legal Expert Dr. Luis Ortega on Supreme Court Resignations in Mexico**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Dr. Ortega. The recent announcement that eight members of Mexico’s Supreme Court, including President Norma Pina, will not seek re-election amid sweeping legal reforms has raised quite a stir. What are your thoughts on the implications of this mass resignation?
**Dr. Ortega:** Thank you for having me. This situation is quite unprecedented in Mexico’s judicial history. The resignations signal a significant protest against reforms that fundamentally shift the way judges are appointed. By allowing voters to select judges at all levels, this could democratize the judiciary but also opens up risks—especially concerning political influence and corruption.
**Interviewer:** There are concerns that this reform could lead to judges being swayed by powerful interests, including drug cartels. How realistic are these fears?
**Dr. Ortega:** The fears are valid. There’s a significant risk that the public might be manipulated by media narratives or campaigns financed by unsavory entities. In a country where corruption is systemic, having judges elected rather than appointed could lead to a judiciary that reflects the will of the majority, but potentially at the cost of impartiality.
**Interviewer:** President Claudia Sheinbaum accuses the resigning justices of prioritizing their pensions over public service. Do you think financial motives could be behind these resignations?
**Dr. Ortega:** That accusation from Sheinbaum cannot be dismissed lightly. The timing of the resignations does hint at financial strategies related to pension benefits. However, it could also stem from a principled stand against reforms they believe could undermine judicial independence.
**Interviewer:** With Canada and the USA criticizing these changes, how might this affect Mexico’s international relations and legal standing?
**Dr. Ortega:** Criticism from our North American neighbors could add pressure on Mexico to reconsider this reform or at least its implementation. International relations could be strained if Mexico is perceived as moving towards a more politicized judiciary, which could impact trade and diplomatic relations.
**Interviewer:** As we wrap up, what would you say to our readers wondering whether this reform will ultimately benefit the Mexican legal system or lead to greater instability?
**Dr. Ortega:** It’s a complex issue that won’t yield immediate answers. I encourage readers to consider whether the drive for democratic reform can coexist with the need for an impartial judiciary. What do you believe—can voters be trusted to make informed choices about their judges without succumbing to the pressures of powerful interests?
