**Supreme Court Faces Criticism Over Constitutional Dispute**
On November 4, 2024, President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo openly criticized the National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) for allegedly overstepping its authority and causing a constitutional issue. Sheinbaum voiced her concerns amidst decisions regarding a significant reform to the Federal Judicial Power (PJF), asserting her administration’s readiness to proceed whatever the court’s ruling.
The controversy arose after the SCJN disclosed a verdict draft by Justice Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá on October 28, 2024. This draft, in response to constitutional challenges by opposition parties, aims to address changes in the PJF. It outlines declaring the election of judges and magistrates by popular vote unconstitutional, while maintaining the same process for ministers to resolve what is deemed a “constitutional crisis.”
President Sheinbaum criticized the court’s intention to modify constituent resolutions, suggesting that it was the SCJN, not her administration, that was causing the constitutional problem. She emphasized her government’s preparedness, insisting their plan would not be jeopardized regardless of the decision.
Furthermore, the head of state dismissed suggestions of negotiation with Justice González Alcántara Carrancá, maintaining that the government’s role is limited to enacting decisions made by the Constituent via publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation.
Sheinbaum also pointed out that the opposition’s legal challenge lacked legal standing and argued the court is legislating a constitutional reform, a role reserved for legislative bodies.
Simultaneously, the president of the Senate’s Board, José Gerardo Rodolfo Fernández Noroña, confirmed that the judicial election process would continue irrespective of the court’s ruling. Emphasizing the sovereign power of the people, Fernández Noroña criticized the potential for “eight individuals” to override the democratic will.
He supported Sheinbaum’s stance by explaining that the SCJN’s attempted intervention lacks constitutional grounds. Although open to dialogue, Fernández Noroña predicted the possibility of a national crisis if the SCJN’s decision were to invalidate parts of the Constitution.
—
**Secondary Update: Ongoing Tensions Surround Mexican Judicial Reforms**
In related developments, the debate over the SCJN’s role in Mexican constitutional reforms remains a heated topic. Experts and political analysts are closely monitoring the tension between the judicial and executive branches, with many warning of potential instability if consensus isn’t reached.
The controversial reforms have sparked varied responses from legal scholars, who argue the blurring of lines between legislative bodies and the judiciary can weaken democratic processes. Some advocate for an enhanced dialogue between the branches to prevent further escalation.
Public protests have also emerged, with citizens demanding transparency and respect for democratic processes. The outcome of the court’s decision could have lasting impacts on Mexico’s political landscape, setting a precedent for how future constitutional disagreements might be handled.
As developments unfold, both the government and the judiciary face the crucial task of navigating these challenging waters while safeguarding the principle of power separation within the state’s democratic framework.