Judicial reform. “We are looking for a system that guarantees enough profiles, not that they think like us,” says the former head of the Court, who sees “obvious partisanship” in the Supreme Court and debunks the myth of “neutral judges.”
During his participation in the second forum “Toward the National Reform of Justice”, the retired minister
“From my point of view, it cannot be an open election where anyone can register to be a candidate for minister; maybe it should be an indirect election,” he declared.
He added that it is necessary to analyze which type of election process is possible, with guarantees, and with what requirements.
“Should it be only for ministers? For the magistrates of the Electoral Tribunal?, for the counselors of the Federal Judiciary? for all judges in the country? “This is a very interesting debate,” said the retired minister.
At the opening of the meeting, held as part of “Dialogues for Transformation,” Zaldivar argued that a renewal of the judicial system would allow the appropriate ministers to arrive at the Supreme Court since he recognized that it is “almost impossible” for neutral judges to exist.
“At the end of the day, nothing neutral judges; all people have ways of seeing the world, the objectivity This is ideal, but it is almost impossible in reality. What we need to find is a system that guarantees that they will come with appropriate profiles, not ministers who think the way we want.
“There is no system in the world that can guarantee that there are no constitutional judges, magistrates, ministers, or ministers—whatever they are called—that cannot have too much attachment to a political party or a political actor,” he pointed out.
In the forum, held in the building of the Rectory of the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico in Toluca, the retired minister also attacked the country’s highest court, thinking that there was “obvious partisanship” in the Supreme Court.
“Now almost anything legislative process is invalid. If it says that a judgment must be passed in 24 hours, but it is passed in 24 hours and one minute, it is invalid. So clearly—and I continue—the Supreme Court operates politically and from a partisan point of view.
“In my view, this partisanship is very clear in the CUT OFF and that there is a majority—I have already said this—that is linked to conservative causes,” he charged.
He pointed out that before 2018, there was not a single decision on the Supreme Court that invalidated an important policy of the President of the Republic instead. However, he pointed out that since that year, power has been established, and it was clear that the ministers, the majority, voted in a partisan manner.
“Those minorities voted for reasons of transformative constitutionalism and a commitment to human rights, but we do not do it in partisan terms.
“The first suspension will happen when the president arrives (Andrew Manuel) López Obrador, and surprisingly, when it comes to compensation law, from there, the Supreme Court “implements the suspension of unconstitutionality actions as if it were the general rule and not the exception,” he said.
The retired minister explained that in Comprehensive Justice Reform—which is by design—one of the key points is helping people who are unjustly incarcerated.
People from civil societyAmong them are the relatives of the people who were unjustly accused.
“I am very grateful to the speakers who joined us to discuss and share their visions and experiences of the Mexican justice system. the diversity of perspectives required to build an integral reform (…) that will benefit everyone.
“Their testimonies reaffirm my conviction that this system needs to change a lot. We will move towards democratic and egalitarian justice where no one is left behind,” he said. social networks.