Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Judges and Journalists and the Spaces In Between
- 1 Judicial Communication: (Re)Constructing Legitimacy in Argentina
- 2 Communication beyond the Judgments: The Australian High Court, Speaking for Itself, but Not Tweeting
- 3 Uncommon Transparency: The Supreme Court, Media Relations, and Public Opinion in Brazil
- 4 The “Uncomfortable Embrace”: The Supreme Court and the Media in Canada
- 5 Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court and the Media
- 6 The Supreme Court and Media in Ghana's Fourth Republic: An Analysis of Rulings and Interactions between Two Estates of the Realm
- 7 The Puzzle of Judicial Communication in Indonesia: The Media, the Court, and the Chief Justice
- 8 Carping, Criticizing, and Circumventing: Judges, the Supreme Court, and the Media in Israel
- 9 Judicial Communication in South Korea: Moving toward a More Open System?
- 10 Changing the Channel: Broadcasting Deliberations in the Mexican Supreme Court
- 11 Norway: Managed Openness and Transparency
- 12 Judicial Institutional Change and Court Communication Innovations: The Case of the UK Supreme Court
- 13 Symbiosis: The US Supreme Court and the Journalists Who Cover It
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
10 - Changing the Channel: Broadcasting Deliberations in the Mexican Supreme Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2017
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Judges and Journalists and the Spaces In Between
- 1 Judicial Communication: (Re)Constructing Legitimacy in Argentina
- 2 Communication beyond the Judgments: The Australian High Court, Speaking for Itself, but Not Tweeting
- 3 Uncommon Transparency: The Supreme Court, Media Relations, and Public Opinion in Brazil
- 4 The “Uncomfortable Embrace”: The Supreme Court and the Media in Canada
- 5 Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court and the Media
- 6 The Supreme Court and Media in Ghana's Fourth Republic: An Analysis of Rulings and Interactions between Two Estates of the Realm
- 7 The Puzzle of Judicial Communication in Indonesia: The Media, the Court, and the Chief Justice
- 8 Carping, Criticizing, and Circumventing: Judges, the Supreme Court, and the Media in Israel
- 9 Judicial Communication in South Korea: Moving toward a More Open System?
- 10 Changing the Channel: Broadcasting Deliberations in the Mexican Supreme Court
- 11 Norway: Managed Openness and Transparency
- 12 Judicial Institutional Change and Court Communication Innovations: The Case of the UK Supreme Court
- 13 Symbiosis: The US Supreme Court and the Journalists Who Cover It
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Mexico shares many traits with other Latin America new democracies, both in terms of social, economic, and cultural background and in terms of the institutional and regulatory options taken by its formal constitutional system. The country, however, pulls out from regional common trends in a number of conspicuous dimensions. Thus, in contrast with its southern neighbors, it transitioned to democracy without enacting a new Constitution. Mexico's legal path is marked by piecemeal and continuous reformism, and today its legal and institutional framework is a complex mix of last-generation tools interacting with nineteenth- and twentieth-century legacies.
In this chapter, in describing the decision-making protocol of the Mexican Supreme Court and in more generally analyzing the way it communicates and builds its relations with the press and the wider community, we will encounter this distinctive superimposition of old and new. Thus, as we will see, the Mexican Supreme Court is – together with the Supreme Federal Tribunal of Brazil – the originator of a most interesting new development in comparative constitutional law: it has decided to go public on judicial deliberations. While the principle of “open justice” has been known for long and the right to have a public trial in the criminal domain is standardly recognized, the specific stage when Justices debate on the merits and ponder out how they will vote is generally kept outside the public eye. Even courts that hold public audiences and are wholly transparent with regards to which Justice has voted what, still keep the deliberation stage in secrecy. The Plenary Chamber of the Mexican court, by contrast, not only broadcasts the deliberations, but also makes their written transcript permanently available on the website and even publishes, in politically salient cases, the drafts to be discussed.
It is clear that in generating these developments – supplemented with nonjurisdictional initiatives destined to cultivate a particular “institutional image” – the Court wishes to send a very powerful signal: a message of transparency and openness that is easily associated to a commitment to increase trust and build up social and political legitimacy. The way the system actually works in Mexico, however, cannot be understood without having due regard to many other elements of social, legal, and institutional context.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Justices and JournalistsThe Global Perspective, pp. 209 - 234Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
. 2007. “Acceso a la justicia y nuevas formas de participación en la esfera política.” Revista de Estudios Socio-Jurídicos
9 (Special Issue): 9–33.Google Scholar
. 2009. “El rol de la justicia en la articulación de políticas y derechos sociales.” In La revisión judicial de las políticas sociales. Estudio de casos, ed. Víctor Abramovich and Laura Pautassi, 1–89. Buenos Aires: Editoresdel Puerto.
. “Análisis de la sentencia que declara la constitucionalidad de la ley del Distrito Federal, permite a la madre dar muerte al concebido menor de doce semanas.” Boletín mexicano de Derecho comparado
125: 1103–1127.
. 2004. La constitución del estado constitucional. Bogotá: Temis-Palestra.
. Forthcoming. “La Suprema Corte y la justiciabilidad de los mensajes estigmatizantes.” Anuario Iberoamericano de Justicia Constitucional.
. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
. 2004. The Ultimate Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2006. “Justicia y experimentalismo: la función remedial del Poder Judicial en el litigio de derecho público en Argentina.” In Derecho y Pobreza. SELA 2005, 161–183. Buenos Aires: Editoresdel Puerto.
. 1962. The Least Dangerous Branch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
, ed. 2013. Constitutionalism of the Global South: The Activist Tribunals of India, South Africa, and Colombia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, and , eds. 2010. El canon neoconstitutional. Madrid: Trotta.
, and , eds. 2014. Reformar sin mayorías. La dinámica del cambio constitucional en México 1997–2012. Mexico City: Taurus.
, . 2013. Sistemas y modelos de control constitucional en México. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM.
. 1986. The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
, and , eds. 2001. Rule of Law in Latin America: The International Promotion of Judicial Reform. London: Institute of Latin American Studies.
, and . 2010. “La forma es fondo: cómo se nombran y deciden los Ministros de la Suprema Corte de Justicia.” Cuestiones Constitucionales
23: 27–60.Google Scholar
, and . 2006. “Separación de poderes y garantías individuales: la Suprema Corte y los derechos de los contribuyentes.” Cuestiones Constitucionales
14: 91–130.Google Scholar
. 2013. Mensalão. Diário de Um Julgamento – Supremo, Mídia e Opinão Publica. São Paulo: Campus.
, and . 2012. “O STF e a agenda pública nacional: de outro desconhecido a supremo protagonista?” Lua Nova
87: 429–469.Google Scholar
, and . 2010. “The Countermajoritarian Opportunity.” Journal of Constitutional Law
13, no. 2: 353–395.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Breves notas sobre el amparo iberoamericano (desde el derecho constitucional comparado).” In El derecho de amparo en el mundo, ed. and , 3–39. Mexico City: UNAM, Porrúa, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
, and . 2013. El nuevo juicio de amparo. Guía de la reforma constitucional y la nueva Ley de Amparo.
Mexico City: Porrúa, Instituto Mexicanode Derecho Procesal.
, , , and , eds. 2013. Derechos Humanos en la Constitución. Comentarios de jurisprudencia constitucional e interamericana.
Mexico City: UNAM, Suprema Corte de Justiciade la Nación, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
. 2009. Constitutional Courts and Democratic Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
. 2003. The Law as It Could Be. New York: New York University Press.
. 2009. The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
, and . 2008. “Constitutional Courts in Latin America: A Testing Ground for New Parameters of Classification?” Journal of Comparative Law
3, no. 2: 39–63.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Doscientos años de constitucionalismo americano: los Estados Unidos y América Latina, frente a frente.” In El constitucionalismo en el continente americano, ed. , 157–194. Bogotá: Siglodel Hombre Editores, Universidad de los Andes, Universidad EAFIT.
, and , eds. 2008. Courting Social Justice: Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Developing World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
. 2003. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, and . 2002. The Power of Judges: A Comparative Study of Courts and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2007. Envisioning Reform: Improving Judicial Performance in Latin America. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press.
, and . 2011. “Introduction: Courts in Latin America.” In Courts in Latin America, ed. and , 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 2015. “The Brazilian ‘Supremo Tribunal Federal’ (STF): Design and Reasoning of a Soloist Court.” Unpublished paper, on file with author.
. 2010. “How Courts Work: Institutions, Culture, and the Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal.” In Cultures of Legality: Judicialization and Political Activism in Latin America, ed. , , and , 51–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, and . 2004. “The Many as One: Integrity and Group Choice in Paradoxical Cases.” Philosophy and Public Affairs
32: 249–276.Google Scholar
. 2011. Argumentación jurídica. Estudios prácticos.
Mexico City: Porrúa.
. 2015b. “Estado de interdicción, modelos legales sobre discapacidad e interpretación conforme.” Isonomía
43, April: 171–196.Google Scholar
, and . 2005. “On the Many as One: A Reply to Kornhauser and Sager.” Philosophy and Public Affairs
33, no. 4: 377–390.Google Scholar
, and . 2011. “The Mexican Supreme Court (Sexual) Revolution?” Texas Law Review
89: 1863–1893.Google Scholar
. 2007. ¿Por qué la Suprema Corte no ha sido un instrumento para la defensa de los derechos fundamentales?
Mexico City: CIDE, Cuadernos de Trabajo.
, ed. 2010. La confianza en las instituciones. México en perspectiva comparada. Mexico: Centro de Estudios Socialesy de Opinión Pública, Cámarade Diputados.
, and . 2005. “The Constitutional Adjudication Mosaic of Latin America.” Comparative Political Studies
38, no. 2: 189–217.Google Scholar
, and . 2012. “Introduction: The Times Are They Changin’: Constitutional Tranformations in Latin America since the 1990s.” In New Constitutionalism in Latin America: Promises and Practices, ed. and , 3–30. London: Ashgate.
, . 2011. “Libertad de expresión: dimensiones y límites. Censura previa e incriminación de ideas.” In Sentencias de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación desde el análisis de los derechos humanos. Recopilación de ensayos, 351–384. Mexico City: Alto Comisionado de los Derechos Humanos, Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.
. 2013. “La libertad de expresión y sus límites.” In Derechos humanos en la Constitución: Comentarios de jurisprudencia constitucional e interamericana, ed. , , , and , 901–948. México: Fundación Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Institutode Investigaciones Jurídicas UNAM, SCJN.
. 2014a. “El nuevo amparo mexicano y la protección de los derechos ¿Ni tan nuevo ni tan protector?” Anuario de Derechos Humanos
2014: 91–103.Google Scholar
. 2014b. “Libertad de expresión y discurso homofóbico en México ¿Es correcta la teoría constitucional de la Suprema Corte?” Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado
140: 586–616.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Estereotipos, daño dignitario y patrones sistémicos: la discriminación por género y edad en el mercado laboral.” Discusiones, 16, no. 1, 147–188.Google Scholar
. 2016a. “Constitucionalismo viejo, nuevo y desatado: el caso de México.” In El constitutionalismo en el continente americano, ed. , 215–263
Bogotá: Siglodel Hombre Editores, Universidad de los Andes, Universidad EAFIT.
. 2016b. “Cambio constitucional y la arquitectura institucional de la Suprema Corte.” In El rol de la Suprema Corte en la consolidación democrática de México. ed. and , 63–103. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas UNAM, Tirant lo Blanch.
, and . 2010. “La construcción de la transparencia en la Corte: órganos, procedimientos y criterios jurisprudenciales.” In Temas selectos de derecho a la información, ed. In , 163–203. Tabasco, México: Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, Instituto Tabasqueño de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública, Editorial Sista.
2010. “El sistema de administración de justicia.” In Debatiendo la reforma política. Claves del cambio institucional en México, ed. , 159–202. Mexico City: CIDE.
. 2009. La globalización del Estado de derecho: El neoconstitucionalismo, el neoliberalismo y la transformación constitucional en América Latina. Bogotá: Uniandes.
. 2011. “Beyond the Courtroom: The Impact of Judicial Activism on Socioeconomic Rights in Latin America.” Texas Law Review
89: 1669–1698.Google Scholar
, and . 2004. “Destabilization Rights: How Public Litigation Succeeds.” Harvard Law Review
117: 1015–1101.Google Scholar
. 2004. Justice in Plainclothes: A Theory of American Constitutional Practice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
. 2006. La democracia constitucional. Una radiografía teórica.
Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
SCJN. 2011. Sentencias de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación desde el análisis de los derechos humanos. Recopilación de ensayos. Mexico City: Oficinadel Alto Comisionado de los Derechos Humanos, Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación.
. 2010. Judicial Power and Strategic Communication in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, and . 1996. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York: New York University Press.
. 2015. “The Recent Transformations of Constitutional Law in Latin America: Trends and Challenges.” In Law and Society in Latin America: A New Map, ed. , 93–111
Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
, and . 2012. “Tres décadas de transformaciones constitucionales en América Latina: balance y perspectivas.” Unpublished paper on file with author.
. 1995. El derecho dúctil. Ley, derechos, justicia. Madrid: Trotta.
. 2002. Hacia una nueva ley de amparo. Mexico City: Institutode Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM.
- 3
- Cited by