To begin with, in the judicial system, there is an ongoing dispute over what compromises the proper amount of judicial power. This lack of agreement concerning policymaking power of the Courts is bestowed within the discussion between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In general, these two philosophies represent the conflicting approaches taken by judges in their task of interpretation. Consequently, the Court’s decision could be framed in terms of activism or restraint by either changing or upholding public policy.
The appointment of judges has become clearly political. It is not uncommon to hear of candidates making statements with regards to contested political issues as well as the use of partisan language. According to (Bannon, 10) “For neutral arbiters, this heightened political temperature risks exacerbating pressures to decide cases based on political loyalty or expediency, rather than on their understanding of the law.” The selection of judges through popular election therefore suffers serious flaws since the electorate tend to base their decisions on charm instead of serious determinants. The results can be that the person elected as a judge turns out to be one who falls short of the glory of this office in terms of experience, legal training and education.
The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
The system of checks and balances is meant to even power within the Federal Government, but within we know it has its flaws. The judiciary has the least power of them all it is meant to evaluate laws that have been challenged. Executive carries out laws whereas the legislative makes laws. The formation of interest groups and the actions taken by the public greatly impact the power of the judiciary branch as well. Alexander Hamilton 's Federalist NO. 78 paper describes the correct reasoning of as to why the judicial branch has the least power of all
Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.
All things considered, Mark Sutherland has brought together a provocative corps of respected scholars and legal thinkers who collectively offer an incisive critique of a judiciary gone awry while they offer constructive solutions for reform. They make it abundantly clear that we the American people do not have to be slaves to the edicts of these black-robed deities. Their adroit assessment of the federal judiciary is intelligent, rooted in a principled esteem for the rule of law and constitutional popular rule, and their solutions are constitutional defensible, practical and tenable. One thing is resoundingly clear, we must stand up to these demigods in block robes that contravene the design of our federal republic and offer outlandish decisions at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people. It is paramount that the American people awaken and voice their discontent to their elected representatives in Congress if we are to abate judicial tyranny.
Judicial review has been perceived as inconsistent with the significance that democracies properly attach political participation and to equality. Judges under the rule of law are seen as a threat to the courts under a democratic ruling. Judges who conform to the criminal and civil justice in a democratic ruling obtain to the traditional values in moderate courts. The citizens who live under a democratic ruling develop an expectation of judicial power which is expected to be exercised independently. Judges are likely to be a danger to public society since they disregard to speak to cases of a majority rule under racial discrimination.
This famous decision gave the entire judiciary the duty of constitutional control, creating a diffused or decentralized model of control of praetorian origin. All judges at each level of the judiciary are authorized to carry out this review, it is part of their ordinary obligations. The constitutional decisions of these judges can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ultimately ensures the consistency and unity of
“Good Morning dear classmates and teacher, I will be delivering a speech explaining why the US Judicial Branch is Good but Far from Perfect…” Thanks to the principle of Separation of Powers, the U.S. government is divided into three branches, each responsible for accomplishing specific tasks. “The judicial branch is in charge of deciding the meaning of laws, how to apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the Constitution or not. It is said that The Constitution of the United States is the highest law of our Nation. The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, is part of the Judicial Branch.
I believe that a person can predict a decision that the Supreme Court Justices make because of their views are liberal or conservative. Because of their views on either side, they deal with cases by finding loopholes to interpret the laws to make it suitable for the case that works on their side (Pollack, 2017). The final legislation and authority in this country are The United States Supreme Court, despite the objective decision making they decide constitutional cases which are sometimes far from a neutral outcome. The federal judges and the Supreme Court Justices and appointed by the president because it is a political contest between the liberals and the conservatives so that when there is a substantial issue like abortion, there is only
The Constitution of the United States of America is praised for its famous opening line “we the people” as it establishes a democracy in which “the people” are ostensibly able to dictate the ways in which their country will operate. In order to implement a democracy of “the people”, the authors of the Constitution foresaw the need for a system of checks and balances in which each governing branch might check the other in order to prevent a disproportionate balance of power. Each branch today has the power to review, in moderation, the decisions of the others. One such example of this system is judicial review; in present day this term is ubiquitous, yet the idea was explicitly absent from the Constitution. While reasons for this oversight
The Court is able to check both the legislative and executive branches by overturning laws or actions taken by either branch if the justices believe that the branch is not acting in accordance with the Constitution or if an act contradicts the words of the Constitution (“The Constitution,” 27). Although this could make the judicial branch appear superior to the other branches of government, Rosenberg’s arguments in The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? show that this is not the case, especially when it comes to social reform. With judicial review, the Supreme Court can freely make important and sometimes controversial decisions with its interpretations of the law. However, the decisions are almost meaningless unless one of the other branches takes action to implement the Court’s rulings, which serves as a check on the
Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.
What is the “Due Process?” The due process is a fair Treatment through the normal Judicial system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement It respect all legal rights that are balances the power of law of land and protects the individual person. What does it do?
While reading about judicial activism I found that I liked the changes that were made by judges through this process. Many of these changes have had a very positive impact on our society. However, after contemplating the pros and cons to this issue, I have decided that I disagree with judicial activism. This is due to my realization that these judges can legally make these changes just because they believe that it is the right thing to do.
