Maybe one day we will know if the anonymous complaint filed against collaborators of Arturo Zaldívar in the Supreme Court and the Judicial Council is true or not. Likewise, it is not impossible that within a few months—or years—it will be known whether the accusations against his three subordinates involve him or not. But from today there is something we do know: his behavior is incomprehensible outside the Mexican tropics (even though he comes from the highlands).
In many countries, appointments to the highest constitutional court—whether called the supreme court, constitutional council, high court, or supreme court of justice—are for life. In others, these are appointments of the Executive Branch, ratified or not by the Legislative Branch, and are valid for a specific period. In the first case, there are no uses and customs in relation to the activities of the members of the body in question, by definition; In the second case, there may be explicit or tacit prohibitions on certain activities once the period for which they were appointed has concluded.
But I doubt that what Zaldívar has done in Mexico will be allowed in many countries. I am not referring, of course, to early resignation. In the United States, for example, Minister Stephen Breyer left office during his lifetime to allow Joe Biden to appoint a successor of the same legal inclination. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg was harshly criticized for not having resigned in time for Barack Obama to nominate someone to replace her, even knowing that she was suffering from terminal cancer. I am referring to Zaldívar’s transition from the Presidency of the Supreme Court to electoral activism in Claudia Sheinbaum’s campaign.
It may be answered that no one can deprive a citizen of his political rights, which include, of course, political proselytism. It is not entirely true: the military, priests, certain prisoners, and certainly officials of all kinds sacrifice some of their political rights in exchange for others. The loss can be formal, or implicit: the American Supreme Court justices, when they attend the presidential report, do not applaud or stand up during the president’s speech. And Mexican ministers cannot hold public office until two years after leaving the Court.
The problem is not legal, however. It consists of the famous adage about Caesar’s wife: she must be above suspicion. How can we believe that Zaldívar did not sympathize—was not partial to—the legal causes—the cases before the Court—before he joined the 4T? How can we not think that he could have failed in this or that case, in this or that way, in exchange for later support for the cause that he would join, also later? And in fact, how can we not suspect that the leak of the complaint, and this one itself, are not due to friendly fire, that is, to legal, personal or adversaries? politicians of Zaldívar within the Judicial Branch?
The best way to avoid all this—as well as many other consequences of a similar nature—was to respect the letter and the spirit of the “waiting” law: two years without position and without activity policy, at least for a Supreme Court minister. To spare us all suspicions of Zaldívar’s previous bias. And save him the suspicion that he has actually carried out all the activities described in the complaint, in collusion with government officials, judges and law firms. Unless the suspicions are not… suspicions, but realities.
Jorge G. Castaneda
Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico from 2000 to 2003. Professor of politics and Latin American studies at New York University. Among his books: The two left and United States: in privacy and from a distance.
