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.
This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court. The fact that the courts are charged with determining what the law means does not suggest that they will be justified in substituting their will for that of
Statutes are created when original court cases are heard and ruled upon. Case law is created by rulings that are a result of examining statutes. Case law can either uphold the original statute or strike it down. Case law turns out to be an interpretation, or a “second look” at statutes, determining whether or not they uphold the U.S. Constitution. It seems to me that statutes can be either struck down after interpretation or continue to be enforced.
The act was created to protect children and Templeman regarded the arguments on the words ‘is suffering’ as a distraction from the aim. ‘This is an example of judicial practicality and desire to see justice down’ . This case illustrates that the ‘rules’ of statutory interpretation do not have to be followed exactly and are merely guidelines. Lord Templeman states that the rules of interpretation have ‘an aura of scientific authenticity about them when the reality is that interpreting any document is more of an art than a science’ . In other words, the rules can only be guidelines because judges will clearly have different interpretations.
In NYS, the use of technology to obtain information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, would violate the letter and spirit of these Disciplinary Rules. 2. Must the recipient notify sender if metadata is found? “An attorney who receives a communication and is privy to its contents must take reasonable steps to prevent any further disclosure” (www.americanbar.com) NO The Committee held that "in light of the strong public policy in favor of preserving confidentiality as the foundation of the lawyer-client relationship, use of technology to surreptitiously obtain information that may
Checks and Balances The Constitution separates the government into the branches, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Each branch has separate powers but are also given the duty and ability to control and balance others in a system called checks and balances. Each branch is able to limit the other branched to a certain extent in order to protect individual rights. Checks and balances assure that one branch will never have a greater amount of power than another branch. Below are the powers of each branch.
Such judicial action is rare. It is time, say campaigners, that these powers are defined and limited in a constitution. Their extent shouldn’t be left in the hands of judges who too often tend to favour state power against individuals. Nor should parliament be denied the right to exercise some control over such government
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
For example, should judges embrace “mind reading” and issue orders based on mere fMRIs? Intentionally crude and tendentious, this sentence was meant to demonstrate that focusing too narrowly on such cases can impoverish our understanding of how science can interact with law. To avoid this fate, we should systematically investigate four separate quadrants, produced by intersecting two conceptual axes based on “specificity” and “time.” Axis of Specificity. Making new law or applying existing law both require some understanding of the “facts”—either the factual contours of a problem to be solved or the factual particularities necessary to apply general legal principles to a specific case. But as legal scholars have noted, facts can be specific or general (e.g., Faigman, 2008).
A defendant must be represented; however, they do not have the right to choose which counsel they will receive. The attorney must be knowledgeable and competent, but there cannot be any preferential treatment of one lawyer over another based on reputation or perceived abilities of counsel. As long as the attorney has proven to be effective in representing the case, the defendant must be represented by them. Defendants may be able to show just cause about preferring to self-represent, but again, they must show a clear understanding in making the decision to refuse counsel for their case (Tomkovicz, 2002). There are many other limitations of right to counsel, they include the period that is referred to as “noncritical stages”.