Luisa María Alcaldenational leader of Morena, spoke in a negative way against the minister’s project Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN).
This during an appearance before the media, where he took the opportunity to reiterate that the actions of González Alcántara Carrancá “They are an excess.”
All this takes place after the SCJN announced that the minister’s draft sentence will be discussed in plenaryscheduled to be presented on November 5 in an ordinary session.
Luisa María Alcalde spoke out against Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá and his project in the SCJN
Before the media, Luisa María Alcalde spoke against Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá and his project presented at the SCJN.
This in relation to the reform of the Judiciary, where the Morena leader reiterated that the SCJN “exceeds” in his duties, as he asserted that A similar situation had never arisen before..
Mayor charged against González Alcántara Carrancá’s approach, as he insisted that this violated the processes of the highest court, since it must ensure the Constitution.
The president of Morena stated that the reform of the Judiciary was defined as indicated by law, with a qualified majority in both Chambers, so there should be no room for a request for invalidation.
Furthermore, he added that the ministers should not define what does come from the reform of the Judiciary and what does not, given that this is already defined from its approach.
“It is an excess on the part of the SCJN, specifically this minister (Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá), an excess that has violated all procedures, because he is the guardian of the processes, of the laws, of the Constitution and he produces a project without conclude the pleadings part”
Luisa María Alcalde
This raises the project of Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá in the SCJN
He project of Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá was presented last Monday, October 28, 2024, almost two months after the promulgation of the reform of the Judiciary in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF).
Your project takes place in response to unconstitutionality actions 164/2024, 165/2024, 166/2024, 167/2024 and 170/2024, which were promoted by the PAN and PRI.
In this, Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá indicated that the actions presented by the opposition parties are partially substantiated against what was proposed by the ruling party.
Therefore, the draft sentence points out that there are no conditions of a democratic system, nor certainty regarding the nomination of candidates for the election of judges and magistrates in 2025.
Additionally, it indicates that it is possible that the guarantees of immobility of the position of workers of the Judiciary, as well as the principles of independence and autonomy, may be violated.
That is, the project of Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá aims partially invalidate the reform of the Judiciaryas well as the creation of Evaluation Committees for the candidate election process.
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on Recent Developments in the SCJN
Time.news Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we have a special guest, a legal expert specializing in constitutional law, Dr. Isabel Martínez. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Martínez.
Dr. Isabel Martínez: Thank you for having me. I’m pleased to be here to discuss these important issues.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Recently, Luisa María Alcalde, the national leader of Morena, expressed strong opposition to Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá’s project in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, also known as the SCJN. She referred to it as an “excess.” What are your thoughts on her comments?
Dr. Martínez: Alcalde’s comments highlight a significant tension between the legislative and judicial branches in Mexico. By labeling the minister’s actions as an “excess”, she underscores concerns regarding judicial overreach. When she mentions that his approach violates established procedures, it’s crucial to recognize the balance intended within the separation of powers.
Editor: Exactly. She emphasized that the SCJN should uphold constitutional law and not overstep its bounds. How common is it for members of the legislature to publicly criticize the judiciary in such a direct manner?
Dr. Martínez: While tensions do exist, it is relatively rare for a legislator to confront a member of the judiciary so openly. Typically, such disputes occur behind closed doors. Alcalde’s public stance suggests deep-seated issues within the relationship between the branches, indicating that this isn’t just a one-off incident but may point to ongoing conflicts regarding judicial reforms.
Editor: In her remarks, Alcalde asserted that the judiciary exceeded its powers. She insists that the reform of the Judiciary was carried out in accordance with law, which should prevent the need for a request for invalidation. What does this imply about her perspective on the role of the SCJN?
Dr. Martínez: Alcalde’s perspective implies a belief that the SCJN should respect the legislative process and not re-evaluate the outcomes of reforms that have been duly passed. This denotes a fundamental view of the judiciary as an interpreter of law rather than a body that legislates or reinterprets the legislative intent. It pushes for a clear boundary where the legislature’s will as represented in the reforms should stand unchallenged unless there is a constitutional violation.
Editor: She also accused González Alcántara Carrancá of producing a project without concluding the pleadings part. What does this technicality signify, and why is it important in this context?
Dr. Martínez: The procedural aspect she mentions is fundamental to legal processes. In many jurisdictions, including Mexico, the completion of hearings and pleadings is essential before any ruling or project can be proposed. By stating that these processes were not concluded, Alcalde implies that the minister’s actions undermine the integrity of legal proceedings. This could set a worrying precedent about how judicial processes are observed and respected.
Editor: It seems that the upcoming discussion of the minister’s draft in plenary on November 5 will be pivotal. What should the public watch for in this session that could impact public trust in the judiciary?
Dr. Martínez: Absolutely, this session will be crucial. Observers should pay close attention to how the justices handle the dissenting opinions and the arguments presented against the minister’s draft. The deliberations will reflect not only on the merits of his proposal but also on the judiciary’s ability to maintain checks and balances. If the court is seen as overstepping or disregarding fully established legislative processes, it could indeed erode public trust in the judicial system.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Martínez, for your insightful analysis on this significant issue. It certainly sheds light on the complexities at play between the branches of government in Mexico.
Dr. Martínez: Thank you for having me. I’m glad to provide context to such an important topic. It’s imperative that civic discourse continues regarding these issues to strengthen our democracy.
Editor: Agreed. We will continue to monitor this situation closely. Thank you to our viewers for tuning in, and stay with Time.news for more on this and other current events.