The Collegium System And The Collegium System

Over the time the Supreme Court gained the power. The Judiciary is the system of courts, but it is also a “process”. As the historic circumstances were changing the Judiciary had to adapt too. In the last fifty years there were two judicial revolutions that increased the power of the Court. The first one was in the area of civil rights when the Court liberalized many public policies. In the second revolution the Judiciary

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

Electing judges contradict the impartial and independent nature of the judicial system. Judges are not politicians. It is

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.

The supreme Court is the head of the judicial part of Government in the USA, it acts as an appellant court which can also on occasion deal with ambassadorial and diplomat cases. It is separate from the other 2 branches of government in order to remain independent and provides a powerful check on those branches. However it has been criticised by being called democratically lacking. The members have a significant amount of power

The independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative is said to kept by things like their fixed salaries and sub judice rule. Their salaries ‘are paid from the Consolidated Fund’ and aren’t fixed or changeable by Parliament or the government which keeps the judiciary free from political pressure in terms of finance. The sub judice rule is where the MPs in the House of Commons are unable to comment on current or pending cases. This keeps the judiciary free from political interference and prevents prejudice against judicial decisions. This rule is followed by

This history reflects a society , where involves the legal system to exert punishments against anyone that disclosing capacity that could affect on the Government, a judicial system that is within the parameters of equality projected in this story, which deprives the citizen the right to defend itself against accusations of a controller and authoritarian Government.

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.

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

There is the Constitutional Court, which upholds the integrity of the constitution, decide how constitutional a law is, and to make amendments to it. The Superior Judicial Council’s job is to solve disputes between the other courts. Its judges are chosen by the other three courts and serve for an eight-year term. The Council of State is the highest court for civil law, and its judges are chosen from a selection of judges chosen by the Superior Judicial Council. The fourth and final court is the Supreme Court of Justice and is the highest criminal court, the judges are chosen the same as the Council of State and both groups of judges serve for four-year terms. All of the courts are as coequal as possible and intertwined as one can see in how they choose their judges.

The Judicial system is a large organizational structure, with complex public organizations. There was a government by proxy approach in Kristin`s case. Government shares power with other governments, a mixture of private and public organizations. (Kettl)

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has significantly enhanced the power of the judiciary in Canada. Within the Supreme Court of Canada judges have been given the judiciary power and this amount of power is not excessive. Again, in the Supreme Court of Canada judges are federally appointed. Most of these appointments are made by the minister of Justice after Cabinet consultation and approval. In some other cases, appointments are made by the Prime Minister.

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.