Judicial Independence And Its Effect On Economic Growth

The federal government, as you know, is made up of 3 branches. The three branches of government are legislative, executive, and judicial. According to page 197 in the history textbook it states, " Our national's judicial power resides in 'one Supreme Court' " this is known as the judicial branch. What the judicial branch does, the political significance of the judicial branch, and the relations with other branches are all important things to know about the judicial branch. The judicial branch is crucial to our government because it can declares actions of legislature unconstitutional.

On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power.

The doctrine of judicial independence rests on three concepts. The first one is the security of tenure of office which is supposed to guarantee judicial officers freedom from the interferences by the parliament or the executive. The doctrine requires

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

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.

Proponents of Judicial Elections argue that electing judges at a state level allows the judges to reconnect with the people in a closer way and to be more sensitive towards public opinion. However, the Judiciary system, unlike its other two counterparts, was not created to be a democratic institution. Instead, it was built to examine whether the government or the people are acting in accordance to law. Therefore, I oppose Judicial Elections for several reasons. One, it introduces partisanship to a supposedly impartial system and two, it risks disrupting the initial purpose of the Judiciary System which is to counterbalance the steps taken by the Congress and the Executive branch with the law.

When it comes to policymaking, the Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. Actions undertaken by the other branches of government recieve judgement through the power of judicial review. Ideology and judicial philosophies play an important role in judicial decision making, which in the end both informs and influences policy. Judicial decision making can be complex in ways that give certain weight toward factors dependent on the approach that justices take on the interpretation of specific laws and the Constitution.

Since the time of the Framers, the United States has experienced major changes in different significant aspects of the economy such as medicine, technology, politics, and social perceptions of judges. According to their research, the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice has increased significantly since 1971. In the beginning years of the Supreme Court, Justices stayed on the court for an average of seven years, as time went on the average increased to fourteen years, now Justices are averaging almost twenty years on the court. They also analyzed the average age of Justices when leaving office. Between 1971 and 2006, the average age of a Justice when leaving office was seventy-eight years

Each state within the United States of America (USA) has its own unique judicial selection process within its court system. The judicial processes vary from court to court depending on a particular state. This paper analyses these processes, the qualifications for selecting the judges and the steps for removing judges from office, as it applies in the USA states of New York and Texas.

78 examining issues surrounding the judiciary department of the new government being proposed. In his paper, Hamilton justifies the method of appointing the judges, the tenure by which they are to hold their places, and the partition of the judiciary authority between different courts, and their relations to each other. The method of appointing judges was fully discussed in earlier papers, and Hamilton saw no need in reiterating what was already said. Hamilton states that judges appointed are to hold their offices “during good behavior” (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p. A18). Hamilton’s belief that the standard of good behavior for the duration in office was one of the most valued advances in government. Basing a judge’s tenure on good behavior “secures a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p.

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.

Based on the importance of the role the judiciary plays in POGG, I theorize that states will choose a final appellate court that is likely to uphold its policies when challenge. The quantitative analysis presented in Chapter 4 provides evidence that across the all 28 states in the sample the probabily………….. This chapter presents a closer look at three states that retained the JCPC at independence and subsequently abolished the right of appeal. The goal is to increase our understanding of the factors that influence the decision to abolish all appeals to the JCPC in The Gambia, New Zealand and Singapore. Firstly, I argue that states are more likely to perceive a disconnect with the JCPC based on their level of success before the JCPC in cases where the state is a party to the proceedings. Secondly, cases where the state is the appellant may be particularly salient. In these cases, the state has decided to use public resources to challenges the decision of a lower domestic appeals court decision. This indicates that the state takes the challenge very seriously and would like a final appellate court that is likely to uphold its policies. Finally, I argue that change in the governing political coalition will influence the view of the court a partner. Seow (1997) asserts that less democratic or more authoritarian states are likely to be more sensitive to JCPC decisions that do not uphold the

In the Acemeglu, Johnson and Robinson article, “Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long Term Growth”, the authors emphasize how institutions are the main determinant of economic development because stronger institutions allow for more growth in education, security, and health. To observe whether strong institutions determine economic growth it is important to mention the characteristics of a strong institution that allows for fast growth. Strong institutions are able to enforce property rights, a fair judiciary, efficient bureaucracies, intellectual property rights, corporation government bankruptcy laws, and democracy (e.g. “(Lecture 13)”). Going in depth

If the judiciary are intentionally straying into matters of governmental policy then they as unelected, impartial adjudicators should only do so when cases arise that call for such action, potentially when governmental action threatens the rule of law – a right afforded to them as a constitutional check on governmental power. While the judiciary can be viewed as in a constant skirmish with the Legislature and the Executive much of the judiciary’s power to interoperate statutes liberally comes from powers delegated to it by parliament .