Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T03:43:31.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - The Transformation of the Mexican Supreme Court into an Arena for Political Contestation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2013

By
Mónica Castillejos-Aragón
Edited by
Diana Kapiszewski ,
Gordon Silverstein  and
Robert A. Kagan
Diana Kapiszewski
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Gordon Silverstein
Affiliation:
Yale Law School
Robert A. Kagan
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

“In the process of transformation of a post-colonial regime, judicial leadership matters. Public Interest Litigation began with a letter addressed to the Supreme Court from an inmate imprisoned in the South of India. After I read the communication, I decided to visit the poorest areas in India. I spoke with the less advantaged citizens and I got to know their needs. Based on those needs, I developed my own social philosophy and promoted important changes within the Supreme Court.”

– From my interview with Chief Justice N.P. Bhagwati in New Delhi, India, on July 17, 2010

Between 1929 and 2000, the legislative and judicial branches of the Mexican government were subordinated to the executive's control. In theory, the separation of powers was recognized by the dominant political party, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), as a leading tenet defining the governmental structure. However, in practice, the president limited the powers of the other branches through various constitutional reforms. These institutional reforms effectively restricted the Mexican Supreme Court from properly functioning as arbiter between the presidential and congressional powers, and from protecting fundamental rights. The court system essentially preserved authoritarian rule and the Mexican Supreme Court turned into a passive and unimportant institution. Judges aligned themselves with the executive in an effort to avoid any kind of confrontation. As Domingo (2004) describes, the judiciary responded to the wishes of the executive as expressed through a number of formal and informal pressures and incentives such as political rewards and career incentives.

Type
Chapter
Information
Consequential Courts
Judicial Roles in Global Perspective
 , pp. 138 - 160
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alemán, Aguinaco, Vicente, José. 1997. La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación protagonista del cambio en la consolidación del Estado de Derecho. Mexico City: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.Google Scholar
Blake, Joanne. 1996. The Unmasking of Civil Society in Mexico: The EZLN Discourse on Democratic Development. British Columbia: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Castillejos Aragón, Mónica. 2005. La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y el Control Previo de los Tratados Internacionales en México. Mexico City: Porrúa.Google Scholar
Castro y Castro, Juventino. 2003. “Dos Cumbres Profesionales,” in Dr. Juventino Castro y Castro, Mexico City: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.Google Scholar
Castro y Castro, Juventino. 2004. La Descomposición Cultural en México: Estrategia para una cruzada contra la corrupción. Mexico City: Grupo Enlace.Google Scholar
Cossío Díaz, José Ramón. 2001. La Teoría Constitucional de la Suprema Corte. Mexico City: Doctrina Jurídica Contemporánea.Google Scholar
Cossío Díaz, José Ramón. 2005a. Génesis y “Evolución del Acceso a la Información en el Poder Judicial de la Federación,” in A un año de la expedición del Reglamento de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y del Consejo de la Judicatura e en materia de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información. Mexico City: Supreme Court of Mexico.Google Scholar
Cossío Díaz, José Ramón. 2005b. Constitucionalismo Iberoamericano y migración de criterios, 10 años de la Novena Época, Discursos, Mexico City, Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.Google Scholar
Cossío Díaz, José Ramón. 2006. “Los Abogados y la necesidad de una teoría de la Constitución en México,” Este País184.Google Scholar
De Bell, Leendertand Pansters Wil. 2001. “Winners and Losers: Preliminary Reflections on the 2000 Presidential Elections in Mexico,” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 70, April, p. 79.Google Scholar
Domingo, Pilar. 2004. “Judicialization of Politics or Politicization of the Judiciary? Recent Trends in Latin America.” Democratization, 11(1): 104–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles. 1998. The Rights Revolution. Lawyers, Activists and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: The University of Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 2002. “Constitutional Review in the Global Context,” 6 N.Y.U. J. LEGIS. & PUB. POL’Y, 49: 51–52.Google Scholar
Finkel, Jodi. 2000.“Judicial Independence: The Politics of the Supreme Court in Mexico,” Journal of Latin American Studies, 32(3): 705–735.Google Scholar
Finkel, Jodi. 2003. “The Supreme Court Decisions on Electoral Rules after Mexico's 1994 Judicial Reform: An Empowered Court,” Journal of Latin American Studies, 35: 777–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Jodi. 2008. “Judicial Reform as Insurance Policy: Mexico in the 1990s,” Latino American Politics and Sociology, 46(4): 87.Google Scholar
Fix Fierro, Héctor. 1981. “The Writ of Amparo in Latin America,” Lawyer of the Americas, 13(3): 361–391.Google Scholar
Fix Fierro, Héctor. 2003. “Judicial Reform in Mexico: What's Next?” in Beyond the Common Knowledge: Empirical Approaches to the Rule of Law, Jensen, Eric G. and Heller, Thomas (eds.), Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fix Fierro, Héctor. 2007. “The Role of Lawyers in the Mexican Justice System in Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico,” Cornelius, Wayne A. and Shirk, David A. (eds.), South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Fix Zamudio, Héctor. 1993. “La Suprema Corte de Justicia de México como Tribunal Constitucional,” Revista Jurídica de Petróleos Mexicanos, No. 59–60.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” Law & Society Review, 9: 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Góngora Pimentel, Genaro. 2000. “Sin Independencia no somos nada,”Mexico City: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.Google Scholar
Góngora Pimentel, Genaro. 2000. “El Estado de Derecho como promotor del Desarrollo Económico Nacional, Suprema Corte de Justicia,”Mexico City: Suprema Corte.Google Scholar
Góngora Pimentel, Genaro. 2005. “La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación como árbitro nacional, a diez años de la reforma constitucional,” Lex, 118.Google Scholar
Gudiño Pelayo, José de Jesús. 2005. “La participación de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación en la construcción del modelo democrático mexicano,” Lex, Volume 116.Google Scholar
Halliday, Terrence, Karpik, Lucien, and Feeley, Malcolm M. (Eds.). 2007. Fighting for Political Freedom: Comparative Studies of the Legal Complex for Political Change. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Hernández Arcos, Raúl. 2009. “Clínicas de Interés Social y Litigios de Interés Público, para bienestar con garantías universales,” Compromiso: Revista del Poder Judicial de la Federación, October.Google Scholar
Inclán Oseguera, Silvia. 2009. “Judicial Reform in Mexico: Political Insurance or the Search for Political Legitimacy?” Political Research Quarterly, 62(4): 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez Remus, Gabriel. 1996. “La Suprema Corte como Tribunal Constitucional,” Estudios Parlamentarios del Congreso, September–October, pp. 72–77.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. 2001. Adversarial Legalism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Zemans, Frances, . 1980. “The Neglected Role of Law in the Political System,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
Kessler, Mark 1990. “Legal Mobilization for Social Reform: Power and Politics of Agenda Setting,” Law & Society Review, 24(1): 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasser, Mitchel 2009. Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz 2003.“Authoritarianism, Democracy and the Supreme Court: Horizontal Exchange and the Rule of Law in Mexico” in Democratic Accountability in Latin America, Mainwaring, Scott and Welna, Christopher (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz and Sánchez, Arianna. 2006. “An Authoritarian Enclave? The Supreme Court in Mexico's Emerging Democracy.” Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, September.
Magaloni, Ana Laura and Arturo, Zaldívar. 2006. “El Ciudadano Olvidado,” 24 (Nexos), No. 342, June.Google Scholar
Mahoney, Barry. 1988. Changing Times in Trial Courts, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
Moustafa, Tamir. 2007. The Struggle for Constitutional Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moustafa, Tamir. 2008. “The Political Origins of ‘Rule-by-Law’ Regimes,” Prepared for presentation at Yale University Workshop on the Rule of Law, March 28–29.
Raphael, Ricardo. 2006. “Justicia de baja intensidad,” Nexos, May, Volume 342.Google Scholar
Redding, Andrew. 1995. “Mexico: Democracy and Human Rights,”Hemispheric World Policy Institute, July, p. 69.Google Scholar
Ríos-Figueroa, Julio. 2007. “Fragmentation of Power and the Emergence of an Effective Judiciary in Mexico,” 1994–2002 Latin American Politics & Society, 49(1): 31–57.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald, 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Court Bring about Social Change?Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schatz, Sara. 2000. “The Political Context: Nullifying the Punitive of the Court's Legal Formal Rulings and the Attempt to Continue the Reign of Informal, Case-by-Case Justice.” In Elites, Masses, and the Struggle for Democracy in Mexico: A Culturalist Approach. Boston: Praeger, 2–4.Google Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart. 1974. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy and Political Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1981. Courts. A Comparative and Political Analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1992. “The Giving Reasons Requirement,” U. CHI. LEGAL F., 179: 182.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1994. “The Judicialization of Politics.” International Political Science Review, 15(2): 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin and Sweet, Alec Stone. 2002. On Law, Politics and Judicialization, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staton, Jeffery. 2003. “Lobbying for Judicial Reform: The Role of the Mexican Supreme Court in Institutional Selection,” Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California at San Diego.
Staton, Jeffery. 2008. “Cabildeo por una Reforma Judicial: El papel de la Suprema Corte Mexicana en la selección institucional,” in La Reforma de la Justicia en México, México City: El Colegio de México-Centro de Estudios Sociológicos. pp. 267–297.Google Scholar
Staton, Jeffery. 2010. Judicial Power and Strategic Communication in Mexico, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wice, Paul. 1995. Court Reform and Judicial Leadership: Judges George Nicola and the New Jersey Justice System. Boston: Praeger.Google Scholar
Zamora, Stephen et al. 2004. Mexican Law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Góngora, Genaro, “Sin Independencia no somos nada” (México: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, August 2000)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×