Mexico's Supreme Court Looks Set to Be Dominated by One Party
Mexico's governing Morena party looked poised to dominate the Supreme Court on Tuesday, moving closer to controlling the third branch of government, according to early results in the country's divisive, first-ever election to overhaul the courts at every level.
At a news conference, the leader of the country's electoral authority, Guadalupe Taddei, said that over 90 percent of votes for court justices had been counted, and named the nine likely winners.
In a sign of Morena's apparent success, the five women and four men projected to sit on the new Supreme Court were all named on lists distributed by Morena operatives and supporters to indicate to voters which candidates to choose.
The nationwide elections on Sunday transformed the judiciary from an appointment-based system to one in which voters choose judges and magistrates — a hugely ambitious, far-reaching experiment by a large democracy. Morena leaders who pushed the overhaul into effect argue it will help root out corrupt officials, democratize the judiciary and begin to repair a justice system that most Mexicans see as unresponsive and broken.
But opposition figures and legal experts criticized the plan, saying it discarded the career requirements of the old system and kept the door open for criminal groups to influence judges.
Critics also argued that the reform could give Morena control over the judiciary, undermining the system of checks and balances.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court rejects higher bar for straight workers to prove discrimination
Workers who are white, heterosexual or a member of another "majority group" don't need to provide extra evidence to prove workplace discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The big picture: The case concerned a heterosexual woman who was passed over for a promotion, then demoted. She alleged that she was discriminated against in favor of LGBT employees. A lower court ruled that when a member of a majority group — in this case, someone who's heterosexual — wants to bring a discrimination suit, they have to provide extra evidence to prove that they work for "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." No they don't, the Supreme Court said. Federal nondiscrimination law protects every individual under the same standards.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer when her gay boss declined to promote her. The ruling will make it easier to file such suits in some parts of the country. Despite the politically divisive debate playing out over workplace diversity efforts – a fight that has been fueled by President Donald Trump – a unanimous coalition of conservative and liberal justices were in the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. 'Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,' Jackson wrote. Marlean Ames started working for Ohio's state government in 2004 and steadily rose through the ranks at the Department of Youth Services. She claims that in 2017, she started reporting to a gay boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another gay woman. Ames is challenging a requirement applied in five appeals courts across the nation that 'majority' Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate 'background circumstances' in order to pursue their suit. A plaintiff might meet that requirement, for instance, by providing statistical evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority. Ames couldn't do that and so she lost in the lower courts. An employee who is a member of a minority group does not face that same initial hurdle. The requirement was rooted in the notion that it is unusual for an employer to discriminate against a member of a majority group. But neither federal anti-discrimination law nor Supreme Court precedent speak to creating one set of requirements for a majority employee to file a discrimination suit and a different set for a minority employee. During oral arguments in the case in late February, it was clear Ames had widespread support from the justices. Citing the 'background circumstances' requirement, the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Ohio. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, DC, applied that same standard, according to court records. At a moment when Trump has politicized workplace diversity efforts, both the court's conservative and liberal justices – as well as the attorneys arguing the case – appeared to agree that the 6th Circuit's analysis was wrong. The case landed on the Supreme Court's docket last fall, about a month before Trump was elected on a pledge to clamp down diversity and inclusion efforts in both the government and the private sector. The administration has taken a number of steps in that direction, including but attempting to cut funding to entities federal officials allege have supported DEI efforts. Many of those actions are being reviewed by courts. But Ames' case was more procedural. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations agreed that the 6th Circuit should reconsider its approach. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report. This story has been updated with additional developments.
