A lot of magistrates go beyond the constitution and statutes words and use their own political and personal thoughts. Judicial Restraint is the complete opposite of Judicial Activism. The judges should not introduce or instill their own personal or political beliefs into the law. The power and decision of the judges on a verdict should be strictly follow the law and US Constitution. 2.
However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
The controversy arises because the comments by President Obama and Judge Sotomayor are construed by many to mean that her decisions have been and will be in favor of the least advantaged rather than on the merits of their cases dispensed impartially under the law. And although supporters of Judge Sotomayor quickly point out examples where she ruled against women or immigrants or minorities, opponents worry that as a Supreme Court justice, she will be under fewer constraints to do so in the future. While I cannot speak for either President Obama or Judge Sotomayor in terms of what they have in mind, I would like to articulate a reasonable position that is compatible with their words. If this is the position they mean, all the better, but if not, it is still an important way to understand the proper role of judges in our
Is Congress a watchdog or lapdog? Personally, I believe that Congress is a watchdog, whether it is a united or a divided government. However, many people may disagree with this because they may believe that whether or not the Congress is a watchdog or lapdog depends on the government being divided or united. The reason for this is: if it is a united government, Congress will not want to embarrass the President by constantly putting him into account. However, this is not true because the Congress is both an independent and co-equal branch of Government.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Also it gives ordinary citizens an important role on oversight in the judicial branch. This is not equal or fair due to the fact that the law definition of ordinary is; a person, mainly a judge exercising authority by virtue of office and not by delegation. Also document C states those who serve the jury receive benefits and so does the cases that appears before it and democracy itself. Therefore how does someone who doesn’t believe in democracy be considered to have equal rights is the jury system is what is used. That’s another reason why the American jury system is not a good idea.
I think the judicial system should not be in politics. Although NC has used the merit system for years, in my opinion appointed judges would be more appropriate. This would remove citizens from the judicial selection process in favors of an unelected and unaccountable committee. Rather a committee of unelected legal elites will take the politics out of judicial selections and provide a better Judiciary in the state. Electing judges the way North Carolina does certainly has its disadvantages.
It is different in many ways from the other branches of government, but there are still similarities and the same factors that affect all three branches equally. What appear at first to be weaknesses of the Supreme Court may not measure up to the not so obvious strengths and advantages that it possesses. The Court plays an important role in the protection of Civil Liberties, but it is debatable whether it is truly independent enough to perform without any bias. It is natural to assume that a Justice of the Supreme Court will have a political position, some stronger than others, but it does not necessarily mean that they are voting in this way for any partisan reasons. The Court is supposed to pass judgement on matters concerning the constitution and their decisions can be of up most significance because a judgment made in a case then affects the whole country.
More precisely, she argues for the conclusion that abortion is sometimes permissible; she grants that there are scenarios in which obtaining an abortion would be immoral. What is especially novel is the manner in which Thomson constructs her argument. She begins the essay by pointing out that the debate over abortion seems to many people to hinge on whether or not the fetus is a person. Most feel that if we could only determine the answer to that puzzle, the implications for abortion would be clear; namely, that if fetuses are persons then abortions must be impermissible, and that if fetuses are not persons then abortions must be permissible. Thomson, though, thinks that reasoning in this way is misguided, or at very best is incomplete.
Pro Choice A topic that is very controversial in today’s American society is whether or not abortions and stem cell research should be legal or not. There are more facts that prove these topics should be legal. The 9th Amendment states the American’s right of pro choice. Abortion should be kept legal because there are many reasons why the mother should not have the baby. Also because abortions are legal then stem cell research should be made legal because if a fetus is already killed then it can still be put to good scientific research and possibly help another human being.