Analysis Of Cates ' Review On The Court System

In Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead Marc Galanter argues there are two types of parities that you can find inside a court room. There are the “one-shotters” and the “repeat players”. One shotters are people who are only occasionally in direct contact with the judicial system. They may be parents fighting over custody, neighbors trying to come to an agreement on a grievance, or family member fighting over inheritance. One shotters are typically individuals with limited resources and knowledge of the legal system. Gallants argues that for one-shotters their “claims are either too large relative to his seize or too small, realize to cost of remedies” (5).

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

Legitimacy of courts has long been an important factor in the judicial system. However, a more recent concern has been diversity. It is becoming increasingly important for the court to represent those who it serves. “The ECJ’s composition remains unreflective of the millions of black and migrant European Union citizens whom it serves”. Judgements of both the domestic courts of England and Wales along with the European Court of Justice, affect the everyday lives of all EU citizens – including those of minority and underrepresented groups. “Outcomes should not be influenced by considerations of political or financial consequences”. Independence is important as it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented to them by the parties in court. Personal independence is always necessary to ensure that the judiciary as a whole of both the land or the community remains independent. In order for the courts to be fully independent, they must represent the diversity of the people and make decisions in accordance with the law with no other influences. With the growing influence of the government over the last century it has become increasingly important that the judiciary fulfils its responsibility to protect the public against unlawful acts of the government. What has therefore also become increasingly more important is the need for the judiciary to be completely independent from the government. The evidence suggests that the courts nowadays are not

The Canadian court system, like anything made by man, has flaws. One of these flaws is the wrongful conviction of many men and women like David Milgaard and Steven Truscott. These innocent men spent years of their life behind bars because of the court system, serving the sentence for a crime they did not commit.

Merit –compare and contrast the role of judges ,lawyers and lay people within the English courts.

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

Collectivization of judgment by the firm is quite a different matter to Miller. Because the firm suffers when the individual is hauled before civil or criminal court, the firm has incentives to develop judgment in its personnel. In addition senior partners can develop the professional judgment of junior partners by having the junior partners observe the problem-solving abilities of senior partners in real and specific instances. Likewise, junior partners can train managers and so on. The result is a firm that has a high quality of professional judgment…

I do agree that it’s not too many layers and that it’s a good system. It gives us balance between the state and federal. The state is allowed to handle local issues that deals directly with it local citizens and that federal courts helps out to interpret the constitution to ensure that citizens’ rights weren’t violated by the states courts.

Many years ago, before courts existed matters was handled in a privately or informally. This often led to violence and unjust treatment of innocent people. During the rise of the Greek City States and the Roman Empire law enforcement became a public affair instead of private. (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). Along with this movement became formalized courts and other criminal justice institutions. This allowed for law enforcement matters to be handled in a more civilized manner for resolving human conflict.

The picture “Open Court” is illustrated by Jose Ramirez and the painting tells a story about how society has changed throughout the years. The painting is giving a message towards Mexican American and anyone interested in the challenge people faced with education. The theme of the painting is about the progress that education has made throughout the years and the relationship with minorities. The painting also expresses the history of the challenges minority had with education. The audiences for this painting is anyone who is involved with schools. The purpose of this painting is to show how minorities tie in with education and have the viewers decide what they think about the education system in today’s day.

When we started with Brutus and the Federalist, they were looking at different options that were relative for judicial review. An important aspect, that we must look at before we continue, is that even though the Constitution does not say that the court has judicial review, most people assumed from the beginning that it would be applied. This being said, if the idea of judicial review is allowed, then we have to accept two things about the Constitution itself: (a) it has to be read into and interpreted in some way (b) we have to draw deductions about things that are not stated within it. If these two things were to be ignored, then the entire idea of judicial review would be obsolete.

The strongest argument that judicial review is democratic lies upon the legal fact that judicial review is controlled and governed by the state. The state relies upon their set of laws (example: the United States Constitution) which reflects that state’s system of check and balances for rules in which the population will adhere to. The power of the people is directly linked to the electoral process where elected government in a democratic society should echo the voice of their citizens. Although judges are not directly voted on by the people, the state government (who elects the judges) is. By electing state representation, the society is electing the individuals who

In the american court room there are several people involved. Some of the most important and lawful figures include: the judge, who is the main authority and the one responsible for justice. The prosecuting attorney, responsible for presenting the case against the defendant. The defense counsel, who is in

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. It has final appellate jurisdiction over all cases in the United States of America. Although it was provided for only briefly in the Constitution, it is an instrumental part of our democracy.