Who is Olga Sánchez Cordero?
Sánchez Cordero was born in Mexico City, where he studied the law degree at UNAM. It was the first public notary of the capital and between 1993 and 1995 he served as a magistrate of the Superior Court of Justice of the then Federal District.
In 1995, as part of a renewal of the Court, it was elected Minister. His period in the highest court concluded in November 2015. She was also a constituent deputy of the CDMX, Secretary of the Interior and Senator of Morena, a party of which she is a sympathetic, but not militant.
The president of the Senate, who in her social media profile is described as “human rights defender”, admits that she did not like the distribution of accordions with the names and numbers of judicial candidates, prior to the election.
League this issue with the electoral defeat of his daughter, Paula García Villegas, circuit magistrate with 28 years of judicial career who sought a seat in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN).
(Photo: Antonio Baranda / Expansion)
On the issue of accordions, what opinion deserves its massive distribution prior to the choice and that practically all were elected?
To me … my daughter (Paula) was competing. And I think it was one of the best candidates, right? Despite what they have said that if nepotism, poor of my children, Caray! Load with the personal weight of a mother.
I don’t like it because where is your personal performance, which is impressive. I do not have what she has, I do not speak four languages, I do not have a school doctorate like her, nor a master’s degree in the London School of Economics, and does she have to load with the mother’s weight?
Was he ended up affecting?
Of course.
But if it had appeared in the accordions, it would have arrived (to the Court)?
Let’s see, what did it seem? I didn’t like this.
What was not (in the listings) or the accordions themselves?
Well, it was not first (laughs) and second the distribution of accordions. The two things. What else can I tell you?
Is your daughter an example of these profiles that will not reach the judiciary?
Check that profile. See who she is, 28 years in the Judiciary.
So, wasn’t it very good to eliminate the judicial career?
Imagine, he was two years after serving 30 years for a pre -subilation and was two years after serving 55 to pre -retire. He was missing two years of age and two working years. After 28 years, all those 28 years can be thrown away.
And what will happen to your daughter? It is a subject of her, but what has you shared?
I don’t know, I don’t know what will happen to her. She is until 2027. It was one of the best profiles. And he never had privileges like my daughter, on the contrary. They never paid flights to go conferences, no course paid the court.
And they always put it in the collegiate courts that were until the last place and always took them to the first place because it was an obsessed of work. And I studied.
Was it revenge against you?
I think not. I do not speak of revenge. I simply speak of opportunities. The opportunity was not given.
And like her many, don’t you think?
And like her many. I had great hopes that great profiles, great profiles will remain.
Do you feel disappointed in popular vote or reform?
Well, I wanted to … let’s see. Disappointed I cannot be unless I do not see the results that will be realized. You have to see how they are going to develop. Do I think there will be a learning curve? The answer is yes.
Do I think he should have had more attention to the people who occupy the positions? The answer is yes. And all that was in my observations. But when they told me that they were not going to change a comma, because for what.
(The day of the vote of the judicial reform) I had to go to the hospital to stabilize both the heart and blood pressure.
If I had been, how would I have voted?
I did not agree if considerations of what I had proposed were not made.
Against, then, or in abstention?
I did not agree if all the observations I presented were not taken into consideration.
It is not the only reform in which you ignore it, don’t you feel aggrieved?
No, because you have to know the dynamics of Parliament: many things can be proposed that in the end do not land because consensus are not built.
Sánchez Cordero, who anticipates That he will retire from political life in 2027, when the legislature in the Chamber of Deputies concludes, it emphasizes that the judges must be “extremely impartial.”
Before a conformation of the Court with a majority related to the 4T, Sánchez Cordero argues that political “sympathies” should not be fought with objectivity.
Remember that, during his time in the Court, Minister Sergio Salvador Aguirre and she had totally opposite positions and ideologies: while he “was very conservative and inclination to be a panista,” the former minister observes, she set a “very progressive” position on issues such as women’s rights, marginalized groups and the LGTB community.
There are profiles that are already clearly identified with a party, will there be a morenista court that resolves in favor of the government?
The qualities of the most important judges are their independence, their impartiality, their objectivity, their honesty, their capacity. Can they have their sympathy for any party? The answer is yes.
Clearly in the court that I was sympathy for some political parties, yes. But the ministers were very objective, they were extremely transparent, impartial. That was consolidated as a golden age in court.
And he trusts that the new court acts in this way?
I would rely for the good of Mexico that it was an independent, autonomous, experienced, impartial court. I bet on that, to a new integration and give an answer to the people of Mexico.
Do you identify issues that could mark a before and after in court?
I have my criteria on some issues, such as informal preventive detention. We live very complicated moments in security. The President is asking us for these constitutional and legal instruments to deal with organized crime, extortion, kidnappings, drug traffickers.
I would like to live to see him repealed. But today I cannot deny the president a mechanism and an instrument that she is asking us to deal with the very serious problems we are facing.
I will weigh for me personally. And I said: ‘Let’s see, Mrs. President is now facing a very serious, very serious security problem. He is asking us for instruments to face this delicate situation and I will not deny them at this time ‘.
I would like to, live to tell that (in the Court) they already repealed, because then we would be living in a country that does not have these serious security problems.
