Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation is, justifiably, under intense questioning and scrutiny. This is due to the nature of their appointment. They were elected by popular vote. Whether they received many or few votes (it was few), ill-gotten through manipulation or however it may have been, is irrelevant at this point. What matters is that, as elected federal officials, just like the president, representatives, or senators, they must be publicly accountable for their actions. And the observation of their conduct, as well as their decisions, is subject to the approval or rejection of public opinion. Just like any other elected official.
The Justices of the SCJN have not fared well in the press, nor have they elicited a favorable reaction from the public. The SCJN was once held in high esteem for the lawyers who guided justice in the nation, rendered unassailable decisions, and reasoned through their differences with great depth of reflection. It was seen, in a way, as a council of wise men.
Today, all that has changed. First, because the justices are all Morena operatives. I’m not saying they carry their Morena membership cards in their wallets, although some do, but they are all subordinate to the dictates of the National Palace. In other words, the SCJN ceased to be an autonomous branch of government and became an appendage of the National Palace. That is the design of the new Constitution that the president praised on February 5 in Querétaro.
The new Constitution conceives of the federal executive branch as the top of the pyramid of power in Mexico, as in pre-Hispanic times. Below it are the judicial and legislative branches. Below them is the political structure of states and municipalities, relevant agencies, political parties, economic factors, and, at the bottom of the pyramid, the citizenry.
The election of the SCJN Justices raises new questions. Specifically, what happens if they are confirmed to be incompetent, ineffective, ignorant of the law, and, worse, corrupt?
It is precisely because of this uncertainty that some of their actions, decisions, and behaviors attract so much attention. For example, it has been evident that they vote on relevant cases, such as that of Ricardo Salinas Pliego, without much discussion, as they vote along party lines. It took them less than two hours to hear this highly complex case, whose rulings will now affect many important foreign companies, whose executives are considering, among other options, leaving Mexico, given the scope of this decision, which was made hastily and without much discussion or reflection.
Other situations have stood out, such as their intention to reopen cases already tried by previous courts. They believe that, by virtue of their popular election, they have the power to erase the past. Tabula rasa, as philosophers would say. Although this impetus has been curbed, it will undoubtedly resurface with the change in the rotating presidency of the SCJN.
The purchase of armored SUVs speaks to a group of Justices who live in a bubble. They neither see nor hear us. They have Mexican taxpayers’ money at their disposal and spend it like the nouveau riche that they are. We should not be surprised by the purchase itself, but rather by the Justices’ blindness. That is what should concern us.
Similarly, the embarrassing incident in which the SCJN’s illustrious president had his shoes cleaned at an event in Querétaro. Seeing his diligent attendants cleaning his shoes, ready to attend to his every need, tells us how high and fast the pretensions in the head of that justice have risen, and surely in the others as well.
And I am not even mentioning the thousands of unjustified dismissals in the judiciary to accommodate the new servants of the nation, desperate to escape the discomforts of inflation and the worsening economic situation in the country.
Given all these questions about their notorious professional inability to fulfill their assigned duties, the obvious question arises: if they were elected by popular vote, is there a mechanism for revoking their mandate, as is the case with any official elected by popular vote? It is time to start thinking about revoking the mandate of some, or all, of the Justices of the SCJ.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: