Independent Courts: Limiting Government Power

The supreme court is the highest court in the nation, which makes the judicial branch have one of the most important courts in its branch. Its decisions set precedents that all other courts has to follow, and no lower court can ever supersede a supreme court decision. Not even the congress or the president can change,reject,or ignore a supreme court decision, making the judicial branch the most important because even the highest people has to go through this branch. There are 3 branches of government, but the judicial branch happens to hold the most power among the three. This is my second reason why I believe the judicial branch should be considered the most powerful

Judicial independence is based on the freedom of the judiciary from the interference by the two by the two other branches of government: the executive and legislature, in its activities, as well as freedom from pressure exerted by the media or public opinion. Judicial neutrality is the absence of bias in the judiciary for example; religious, social, gender, political or racial bias. UK judges are generally seen to possess both independent and neutral qualities. They are independent and neutral to a large extent as the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 has increased their independence and existing measures such as security of their job and salary, as well as sub judice rule, the growth of judicial review and increased European influence maintains existing independence. Neutrality is increasing the judiciary as its social representation is improving and the biased attitudes of judges towards national security have been changing. However independence and neutrality is still limited as there have been biased judgements against certain social groups, biased judgments in favour of national

In Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America, Mark Sutherland proposes his ideas on how America is now being heavily influenced by tyrannical judges who pervert the constitution, to support their individual positions. According to Cambridge Dictionary, tyranny is defined as, “unlimited authority or use of power, or a government which exercises such power without any control or limits” (Cambridge 2015). There is, in our society, an over-reaching judicial branch ran by judges who are consumed by the idea that they are the resource which can establish or re-define the law. The three fallacies with our society is tyrannical judges who impose man’s law above sovereign law , citizens who don’t know about the un-constitutional rule that judges are imposing over the courts, and those who know about it but don’t know how to react when facing a tyrannical judge.

The principle, checks & Balances, limits the power of the Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive branches. The Judicial branch can declare executive actions not constitutional and the Executive

It is part of the fundamental belief of the great values this country was formed and founded on. In every aspect of the way the Judicial Branch in itself is part of our fundamental rights as Americans and at its core it represents our way of life. Without this branch, there would be a huge hole in our government, specifically because of the way it structures our system as a

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.

Court and process: Constitutional Court ruled that the law is the prerogative of the federalism, not only reconciliation state governments. The state of government did not agree that would be their responsibility for repaid Mr. Barron. The chief justice John Marshall thought that this is not the states problem, and there is nothing to do in the side of the city of Baltimore. Mr. Barron insists that is in the faith amendment and it should be until the bill of right of the state government, and the federal government were unsure of the faith amendment was so clear. However, after the civil war the state of government made the fourth amendment that the state can’t take any bill of rights from the citizen.

The Very Bad Bike Club has known to be a threat to not only the citizens but to the virtual criminal justice system. Furthermore, the Very Bad Bike Club has had a couple mistakes they made where law enforcement officers were able to catch them. However, when members of the Very Bad Bike Club get to the courts they tend to get bail or plea bargaining which lead to the members getting an easy way out of jail. The virtual criminal justice alliance is looking to put an end to that today. Furthermore, each group of the virtual criminal justice alliance feels like they can play an important role to taking down the Very Bad Bike Club. As the chief criminal

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

It is believed to be said that people commit crimes because of various reasons and aspects in their life. The community offers their citizens a secure and safe residence to live in. However, some argue that particular individuals are born with specific traits that determine how they react in a negative condition. Individuals make decisions in life that can lead them down the wrong path. An individual may choose to commit a crime, only looking at how it will benefit them. I also believe that people think before they commit any criminal activity. When an individual commits a crime, they act on their own free will. They’re aware of their consequences of their punishment. Also, people can commit crimes due to their society. Such conflicts arise

Judicial deliberations are different from that of the legislature because judiciaries at the federal level do not represent constituents or seek to be reelected. Judicial independence at the federal level provides a guarantee that judges are free to rule in an honest and nonpartisan manner that is in line with the law and evidence, without concern or fear of interference, control, or improper influence from anyone. This guarantee is provided because judges at the federal level are appointed for life, and need not to worry about partisanship. Contrary to the legislature, the government does not pose a consequential threat to the power of judicial independence because it is at war with itself. However, it is commonly seen that judges at the federal level rely too heavily on

When the Founding Fathers constructed up the Constitution, they made it very clear that there would be three distinct branches of the government. These three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, would all play different roles and have to work together in order to make our country run. While the legislative and executive branches clearly uphold a representative democracy, it has been argued that the judicial branch, containing only unelected officers does not, failing to be anything close to democratic. Even though the Judicial Branch is the least democratic, it plays a vital role in preserving democracy.

In the State of New Hampshire when you are arrested and charged with a crime, you will be arraigned by the District Court who has jurisdiction in a 24 hour time frame. Jurisdiction is determined on where the crime occurred, what the crime was, and who committed the crime. During the arraignment a plea is entered or request of a continuance, an attorney will be provided for defendants who cannot afford one on their own, bail set, and a probable cause hearing will be scheduled. If bail is set, this is to encourage the defendant to show up for any future court appearances and may issue restrictions for travel and other activities to avoid having bail revoked (Broderick & Dahar, 2008). If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, the judge may proceed to a verdict, or the prosecutor and the defense attorney may work out a plea deal if the charge is considered minor. If it is a more serious crime, the judge will move to schedule future hearings.

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 legitimacy, and even existence of judicial activism is a hotly debated topic in today’s politics. Some argue that the supreme court acts as a revolutionary reformer which leads the way on progressive issues. Still others argue that the constitution is a living document which is meant to serve the needs of the present, effectively negating the concept of judicial activism altogether. If one were to assume that judicial activism truly exists, defined as ruling which break from contemporary legal understanding and precedent, one is able to analyze the context of such decisions and the real role that the Supreme Court plays in the evolution of political and social norms. With this in mind, it appears