Bespectacled and soft-spoken, Juan Luis González Alcántara has devoted his life to the law, writing tomes on complex doctrines and teaching at a top law school before rising to become a justice on Mexico’s Supreme Court.
Now he is proposing a last-ditch compromise to ease Mexico’s constitutional crisis over the ruling party’s plan to force aspirants for nearly all judgeships in the country to be elected instead of appointed.
The proposal, which he believes could preserve a degree of judicial independence, is simple: Contenders for the Supreme Court and other top courts would have to stand for election. But thousands of other judges, appointed based on years of training, would remain in their jobs.
There is just one problem: In the current political climate, leaders of Morena, the exceptionally powerful ruling party, which blends a nationalist and leftist approach to policy, are equating just about any form of compromise with surrender.
It is not even clear whether his own fellow justices on the high court can coalesce around a deal, which President Claudia Sheinbaum and her allies could simply refuse to accept. In September, a constitutional amendment restructuring the judiciary was passed into law.
But the justice’s proposal showcases the sharply contrasting views in the country over the judicial overhaul, and its status. Morena views the changes called for in the amendment as a done deal, and a needed move to curb corruption and align the judiciary with the wishes of its voters.
But Justice González Alcántara insists there is a way to tone down the tensions over the changes by using whatever authority the Supreme Court may still have left, even after a new law was approved last month that would prevent any legal challenges to constitutional amendments, like the judicial overhaul.
Critics say the new measure, along with the broad changes to the judiciary, will gut Mexico’s system of democratic checks and balances.
“I’m extending a hand, opening up the possibility for negotiation, for reflection, an invitation to weigh things carefully,” Justice González Alcántara said in an interview in his chambers in Mexico City.
The justice, a normally subdued voice on the Supreme Court, delivered a stern warning should Morena gets its way in radically redesigning the judiciary while curbing the authority of the courts: “Rule of law in Mexico disappears.”
The court is scheduled to start discussing the proposal on Tuesday. If approved, it would invalidate key pieces of the judicial overhaul approved in September, which Morena’s leaders are vowing to implement despite hundreds of legal challenges from the courts.
The president and her allies, saying they are channeling the wishes of voters who handed them landslide election victories this year, have mostly ignored any legal objections.
Hard-line power brokers in the Morena Party have gone further, saying they would not abide by any decision by the Supreme Court that would alter the judicial overhaul.
Those in favor of the justice’s proposal said that would be a mistake.
The idea “offers an intelligent and sensible political solution to what has already become a constitutional conflict,” said Alberto Zinser, one of Mexico’s most prominent criminal defense lawyers. “It sends a clear message: ‘We’re offering our heads, but don’t put an end to the judicial careers of thousands of judges.’”
Even some supporters of the judicial overhaul see some value in the justice’s proposal.
Vanessa Romero Rocha, a lawyer and political analyst, said the proposal was “politically sensible” even if she questioned its legal underpinnings and argued against accepting it, in part because of how late the compromise had emerged.
At first glance, Justice González Alcántara, 75, seems like the right person to find some kind of middle ground. He was a progressive eminence in Mexico’s judiciary when Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the left-leaning former president who founded Morena and pushed through the judicial overhaul at the end of his term in September, nominated him to the court in 2018.
But that was before he and Mr. López Obrador had a public rift when the former president accused him of betrayal by siding with a bloc of other justices who stymied some of Mr. López Obrador’s most contentious plans, like undermining the autonomy of the country’s electoral agency.
Justice González Alcántara’s bid for compromise faces other hurdles, starting with the sweeping new measures that would bar legal challenges to approved constitutional amendments.
The measures go even further than the judicial overhaul itself in constraining the powers of Mexico’s courts, drawing comparisons with how the party of Hungary’s right-wing prime minister, Viktor Orban, prevented the constitutional court from scrutinizing constitutional amendments.
Still, Justice González Alcántara maintains that the Supreme Court could still consider his proposal even after the new law limiting its powers.
Yielding to Morena, he argued, would deal a devastating blow to Mexico’s democracy, opening the way for what he called a “tyranny of the majority,” emphasizing that Morena’s efforts to neutralize any opposition to the party’s plans for the judiciary could extend to other important areas.
“Changing the democratic system, proposing a monarchy, abolishing term limits, establishing a Catholic or Protestant state, they could do all of that without a Supreme Court to tell them it’s wrong,” Justice González Alcántara said.
Ms. Sheinbaum has said she would wait to see how the justices vote, though she seems to be signaling resistance to the proposed compromise, which needs the support of 8 of the court’s 11 justices to be approved.
“I was elected by the people of Mexico, and eight ministers cannot be above the people,” she said on Thursday.
Justice González Alcántara said he was well aware of Ms. Sheinbaum’s statements. Still, he added, he remained hopeful that the president could be open to compromise, noting that before taking office she had said the judicial overhaul needed to be done carefully, without rushing.
“She’s much calmer than the leaders of Congress,” he said.
Another source of uncertainty around his proposal lies within the Supreme Court itself, which is divided along ideological lines and faces its own restructuring after eight of its 11 justices, including Justice González Alcántara, said they would resign when their terms expire instead of participating in judicial elections.
He acknowledged that winning the support of eight of the court’s 11 justices for his proposal could be a “very difficult” uphill battle, though he remains hopeful.
Other experts on how the Supreme Court operates are more sanguine about how the justices are likely to vote.
In the end, eight votes in support could come from the justices who have already decided to resign, since their costs of siding against Morena could be low, said Saúl López, a law professor at Tecnológico de Monterrey, one of Mexico’s top universities.
“Alcántara’s project is not only solid legally speaking but also clearly recognizes the constitutional crisis that already exists,” Mr. López said, describing the proposal as a “politically moderate and responsible solution to get out of this crisis.”
Still, in Mexico’s charged political climate, attempts at moderation could prove futile. Even if Ms. Sheinbaum agrees with the proposal, she could face significant blowback from her own party for accepting any kind of common ground from the already enfeebled Supreme Court.
“I’m not sure she’s in the condition to take this way out,” Mr. López said.
The post A Way Out of Mexico’s Constitutional Crisis? One Idea for Compromise Emerges. appeared first on New York Times.
