Opinion

The U.S. doesn’t have standing to criticize Mexico’s judicial reforms

Contrary to The Post’s argument that Mexico’s domestic affairs are a matter of hemispheric concern, such interference is contrary to the U.N.-recognized principle that nations have a duty not to intervene in matters within the internal jurisdiction of any state. And the specific nature of the argument made by The Post and Mr. Salazar suggests a double standard: What is virtue in the United States is vice in Mexico.

It is worth noting that in the United States, many states elect members of the judiciary. Americans seem to consider this practice reliable, and Mexico has never suggested that U.S. democracy is in peril because of this. This practice of good neighborliness has extended to Mexico’s respect to President Joe Biden’s most recent proposal for changes to the U.S. Supreme Court, as published in The Post on July 29.

Certainly, a comprehensive judicial reform deserves a broad domestic debate, such as the one that took place in Mexico during the recent electoral process. But just as Mexico respects America’s right to self-determination through its political processes, even when the results might not favor Mexican interests, the United States must show the same respect for Mexico’s sovereign quest for a more transparent, accountable and independent judiciary, conducted through our internal constitutional legal procedures. The Mexican people are capable of judging what is in their own best interest. The United States should not disenfranchise them by suggesting otherwise.

It is also worth noting that with the majority obtained in the June elections in Mexico, the president-elect could simply fill the Mexican Supreme Court with loyalists, as leaders do in many other countries. Her support for direct elections of the judiciary is an expression of support for Mexican democracy and for judicial independence from any one administration or leader.

Mexico will remain open to any constructive engagement and exchange of ideas in line with our democratic values as long as those conversations are rooted in the deep respect Mexico and the United States have for each other and their sovereignty. We are neighbors, we are friends and we are partners in growth, building prosperity for our common future.

Juan Ramón de la Fuente, Mexico City

Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico City

The writers have been nominated to serve as secretary of foreign affairs and secretary of economy, respectively, by Claudia Sheinbaum, the president-elect of Mexico.

Regarding The Post’s recent editorial on the United States’ right to comment on judicial reforms in Mexico: Do we even have a leg to stand on, even to analyze the issue, let alone criticize Mexico’s approach? Just review our judicial appointments during Donald Trump’s presidency.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) denied even a hearing on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court during President Barack Obama’s final year in office, thus opening the door for Mr. Trump to appoint his first Supreme Court justice. Two more Supreme Court appointments soon followed with the help of Mr. McConnell, including the rushed appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Appointing ultraconservative federal judges is touted as the singular accomplishment of Mr. McConnell’s Senate career. A prime example of how well the federal judiciary works in the United States was the recent decision by Trump-appointed Judge Aileen M. Cannon of Florida to throw out the classified documents case against the man who secured her job. The icing on the cake of our independent judiciary system is the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting unprecedented immunity power to the president for official acts.

In what way does our judicial appointments process produce results that are different from or fairer than what’s being proposed by Mexico’s leaders?

Shree Iyengar, Severn, Md.

The Post’s recent editorial supported the U.S. ambassador’s harsh denunciation of Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s proposal for electing rather than appointing judges in that country. At stake, the Editorial Board claimed, is “judicial independence.”

But it is unclear why judges who are elected are less independent than those who are appointed. The recent decision by the majority of our own appointed Supreme Court to grant effective immunity to the convicted head of the political party that appointed one-third of that court is a case in point.

The editorial’s concern seems to be less about legal principles than that people associated with Mr. López Obrador’s political party are likely to win “the lion’s share” of elections. Why? Because the party is popular. This is an odd argument coming from the country that claims to be the global champion of democracy, and whose importing of drugs, exporting of guns and support for corrupt oligarchs has made a major contribution to the lawlessness that plagues Mexico. Mr. López Obrador’s proposal might or might not be the best way to reform the Mexican judicial system. But this is for Mexicans to decide. Our country, with its long and disgraceful history of interference in Mexican politics, should mind its own business.

Jeff Faux, Washington

Friends versus ‘friends’

The loneliness epidemic continues unabated, and the statistics on social connection look worse all the time, as Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) recently pointed out. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy says people around the country frequently share a devastating message with him: “If I disappear tomorrow, no one will even notice.”

This all comes at a time when the illusion of connection is everywhere. We might have hundreds of “friends” on Facebook or followers on Instagram, but those people may just scroll or swipe past our requests for help when we need it. When it comes to friendship, we’ve become a nation that goes wide instead of deep.

Fortunately, there’s a vaccine available, though it takes more than a trip to the pharmacy to obtain it: make one true friend. Look at that list of Facebook friends, consider your daily routine, think about the neighbors. Who — outside of your family — do you care about the most? What are you doing to protect and strengthen that relationship? Friendship requires effort. It also means letting someone else be the priority now and then. A true friend pays attention. Listens. Makes eye contact. Asks questions. A true friend appreciates that the devil isn’t in the details — that’s a person’s life, and you should be honored to share it.

As my best friend of 60 years says: “If it matters to you, it matters to me.”

The wonderful thing is, once you’re comfortable talking about everything from the idiot you work for to what you’re making for dinner, it’s easier to talk about the big issues. Their health. Your marriage. The kids. You can even talk about how lonely you are.

Jan Sokoloff Harness, Olathe, Kan.

Life inside the ‘sandwich’

My husband and I are the “peanut butter and jelly” in the sandwich generation. Our position was really driven home to us recently when we drove our daughter to begin her freshman year at a beautiful Midwestern college. Previous to that, we had moved our elderly parents to a beautiful, senior living facility. We giggled as we realized the similarities of both these “bread” generations.

Both were apprehensive about these transitions and a little homesick. Both were worried about getting around a large, new location. Both were concerned about making new friends. And both had ended up packing too much stuff.

The orientations at both places were somewhat different. At the college, food was served at every turn. In the senior village, sappy, old-time songs played everywhere. The students were warned about the dangers of taking drugs. The seniors were admonished to take their meds regularly. The students got rape alarms and the elders had emergency microphones to wear around their necks if they needed to call for help. Elderly residents were allowed to keep their old dogs; there was even a dog park on the premises. Some students were allowed service pets.

There are the frantic late-night calls from the child: “What should I do, my roommate is having her boyfriend sleep over?” From the parents, it’s “Can you come over to help? Dad has fallen down again.”

Even the CVS was different in each place. The college campus location featured a prominent display of condoms, energy drinks and snacks, while the senior village store had a whole wall of Depends.

It may be a difficult job to juggle the needs of both ends of the age spectrum. But we remember the difficulties of growing up, and someday we will know the infirmities of old age. Being the “sandwich filling” has its challenges. But it’s also an honor to take on this charge.

Judith Katz, Springfield, Va.