Judicial Independence

Judicial Branch is established under Article III of the Constitution. It was created to be the weakest of all three branches of government. Each branch has its own characteristics, but what distinguishes this branch from other two is that Judiciary is passive. It cannot act until someone brings case in front of them. Even if some law or act is unconstitutional, courts are powerless to do anything on their own. Contrary to Judiciary, other two branches are active, and have power to attack other subjects.

The social composition of the judiciary doesn’t matter, judiciary operates under parliament. Parliament is under control

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,

Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.

1a) With reference to the source, describe the measures that exist to maintain the independence and neutrality of the judiciary.

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.

The judiciary system is defined by Article III in the Constitution and Section 2 describes the powers and limitations that court system has. The purpose of the judiciary is to handle interpretations of the laws created by the constitution and any disputes that arises between parties, cases may be brought to the court, the court cannot create cases. There are 3 levels in the court system, which is true for the state judiciary as well as the Federal level. The two lower levels attempt resolve issues while lessoning the burden on the supreme courts. The lowest level of court is the district court aka trial courts,

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.

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

In the Constitution, Article III establishes the federal judiciary. The section states, “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (“Supreme Court”). The responsibility of the Supreme Court is to balance the powers in each branch of government as well as protect civil rights and liberties by ruling laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional. The elite cases the Supreme Court decide to rule on can be to protect the civil rights and liberties of citizens by referring to the Constitution and the rights it entails. Since this court is the highest power in the judicial system, it is the final stop and last resort for those seeking justice.

This leads to “inevitable bias being introduced into our political and legal cultures” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). Because these judges are coming from similar backgrounds, they share perspectives that consequently lead to the suppression of those whose interests are not “adequately recognized or supported by the dominant, mainstream ideologies” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). It is not hard to understand why some fear a Charter that is so hard to change is violating the principles of democracy. Judges, in no sense, are in the position of moral authority nor are they experts in areas typically concerned with by the government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 543). The judiciary is the epitome of contrasting notions when it comes to self-governing, the heart of democracy. Allowing unelected judges to overrule decisions of legislators is problematic for all of society and represents the abandonment of self-government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 541).

The United States judicial branch was created by the founding fathers to help protect the rights, freedoms, and privileges of the citizens. Protection is achieved by the judicial branches’ power to approve the constitutionality and interpretation of laws. By interpreting the laws and constitutionality the judicial branch is exercising their power of judicial review. When exercising the power of judicial review judges either choose a role of judicial activism or a role of judicial restraint. This paper will include the debate of whether judges in the United States should be activists or restrained when interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws.

While independence of the courts was a factor in achieving balance of power among the governmental branches, Hamilton additionally states that the judicial branch is the weakest and “least dangerous” branch unless, in its independence, it is able to act. “The judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution.... It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” The courts are thus enabled only by the executive branch to enforce decisions and are explicitly forbid to interpret laws founded on its views. With only the power to make judgments and no power to act, the judicial branch could not contribute to an equal balance of power among the three branches.

For instance, if the parliament, acting on public opinion, was to make a law severely curbing the rights of some minority, the supreme court has the right to struck it down as unconstitutional, irrespective of the public support behind that law. This principle takes into account the notion that popular sentiments should not always be reflected in state policies, especially when they contradict the law. The process of judicial elections, however, is entirely based on public support as the basic legitimizing criteria for the justice system and fails to consider the fallibility of popular opinions. And, when judges are elected to their offices, the cannot work irrespective of public opinion which helped them gain their seat in the bench. Therefore, election of judges contradicts the basic principles of democracy as well as independence of the judiciary.