Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws?

* In the criminal courts a judge and sometimes a jury hears a witnesses testimony and other evidence and decide cases by applying relevant law to the relevant facts. People who are not satisfied with a trial court decision appeal cases to judges in the appellate courts.

When a legislature offers an affirmed legal code, it is then a statutory law. The process of statutory law begins with a proposed bill. Once the bill is passed by congress, it becomes a law. This new statue acts as a primary law and must the followed from then on out. Statutory law differs from common law, which is a law made a judge. "Common law is the system of deciding cases that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S.. Common law is based on precedent instead of statutory laws" (Common Law & Legal Definition). Most common laws are now statues. Stare decisis or 'let the decision stand' is the root of common law. If a court has made its decision on particular case the same ruling will be applied to any similar case that follows. Stare decisis is important because it allows predictability to law. This way, things stay the same, and laws can be more easily applied in cases. However, because new problems are constantly arising, it is also important that the law remain flexible (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson 66).

It would be impractical for judges to not make law in some situations as both parties in the case would not want the judge to refuse to deal with the case and they would want the matter decided. ‘Judicial decisions are important as a source of law on matters where the government is

concentrates that law is purely used to promote good by the state. Furthermore, law should

A crucial argument left unanswered is if state judges should be appointed or elected? Conflicting views raise many questions about how things would change in the court system. According to the article Justice at Stake, “One of the hottest debates in judicial politics today is whether judges should be chosen through competitive election or appointments. Each side has pros and cons”. Many states elect their judges through a merit selection process or appoint them through a process called the partisan election. Texas judges use partisan election where judges are elected by the people. Another question that arises is if Texas should continue using the partisan election to elect their judges when it may seem untrustworthy. A decision could be discussed on the process in electing state judges such as on the topics of improvements, conflictions, and which process seems more reasonable. Improvements can be made to the process of electing state judges… Overall, the appointment of judges varies by state, but looking at Texas’ past and present justice system will determine whether Texas should continue to elect, or switch over to appoint.

Americans depend a great deal on entertainment to educate them about life. In several ways Americans live vicariously through the actors and actresses on television and believe themselves to learn many things from those actors and actresses. For example, many people have said they learned medical techniques by watching medical shows on television or believe they would know what to do in a medical emergency because they have seen it done on television. The same goes for Americans’ knowledge about Court hearings and the judicial system. Many things are done on television by actors playing lawyers or judges that are done just for the purpose of entertainment. “Reality-based” Court shows such as Judge Judy, People’s Court

The Judicial branch interprets the law. It brings resolution to disputes. If parties cannot resolve conflicts then they can enforce a lawsuit. This will enforce the court to resolve their legal issues. The court applies the law to the particular dispute. It looks into all relevant statues, constitutional provisions and administrative facts. They determine the shape and structure of the judicial system. A judicial branch of government oversees the court system in the United States and explains the meaning of the constitution and all laws passed by congress.

this law is developed through decisions by judges on a case brought before them, each jurisdiction is developed by its own

Magistrates pass the most serious crimes (e.g. murder, rape and robbery) to the Crown Court. Magistrates decide if the defendant should be:

What is the court role? Well the federal judiciary operates separately from executive and the legislative branch .The branches work together at times .The Federal Laws are passed by congress and signed by the president .All parts of government work together according to the constitution.

deduce the laws from statutes and apply them, but how they apply laws is based on

The contrast between Natural Law and Legal Positivism is a necessary starting point for those who wish to understand the relationship between law and morality, and the most varied manners in which it influences society to this day. When it comes to analyzing which theory offers the most well-rounded idea of law, one can argue that Legal Positivism provides the best definition of what law is at its essence. However, because Legal Positivism came to exist as a critique to what was proposed by Natural Law theorists, it is significant that both are explored in depth as means to support such argument.

The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To

The expectation from our judges that they will always act objectively in making their decisions is correct but only to a certain extent. By using the theories of interpretation and judicial decision-making of both Dworkin and American Legal Realism, it is evident that a balancing act occurs between objective judgments and interpretation and subjective judgments and interpretation. Often, subjective judgments are the most dominant to a large extent. One must look at the ideas of Dworkin in terms of considering that judgments have aspects of both objectivity and subjectivity. One must also look at the ideas of American Legal Realism where subjectivity plays a gigantic role in judgments leaving objectivity with little or no influence

The Rules of the Statutory interpretation are The literal rule (IRC v Hinchy, 1960), the golden rule(R v Allen, 1872), The mischief rule (Smith v Hughes, 1960) and The Ejusdem generis rule (Powell v Kempton Racecourse, 1899) The golden rule of statutory interpretation may be applied where an application of the literal rule would lead to an absurdity(R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367). This is law/ legislation, which has been enacted by Parliament and through administrative process. The law enacted by Parliament is known as an Act of Parliament.