It has been argued that the Supreme Court has too much power because they are unelected and have extended not only the rights of individuals and groups but of the Government and their jurisdiction. However, they are not all powerful as the other two branches can keep check on the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court’s decisions do not always have to be followed. Therefore, although they may have a large power, they do not have too much power. One reason they are seen to have too much power is that they have extended the rights of groups and individuals which should be the responsibility and prerogative of the elected officials. For example, in Brown v BoE 1954, the Supreme Court ended segregation in schools, allowing black children to go to school with white children.
The Supreme Court takes part in judicial review which is examination by a country's courts of the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government to ensure that those actions conform to the provisions of the constitution. “Judicial review enables the courts to protect constitutional principles against attacks by elected officials” (Dye 326). Since they are not elected by the people many believe that it would be better if we had restraints on the judicial power. Justices seek both to advance favored policies and to win approval from audiences they care about. They are likely to care a great deal about their reputations among other elites, including academics, journalists, other judges, fellow lawyers, members of other interest groups, and their friends and neighbors.
This is very important in their job as they will only look for views to help the country, even if those are unpopular. Whereas if there was an elected second chamber their views would always be held accountable, but more importantly then some of their revisions may not be what is best for the country, but what the populous believe to be important, which removes the whole objectivity of the revising chamber. This issue could have been questioned under many unpopular parliamentary decisions such as with the Iraq War in 2003, where many of the voters would likely be against it as seen by the many demonstrations, whereas an expert in the Military in House of Lords may believe that it is possible to win the war, however at the next vote his skills would likely be lost when he wouldn’t be re-elected. A wholly elected upper chamber would also pose several problems in regards to the Lords’ expertise. As at the moment, the upper chamber is comprised of experts in their fields leading to high quality debates, if not higher than in the Commons.
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
In short, many of the legal safeguards American citizens enjoy under our constitution would not be guaranteed under the ICC. An issue with effective evidence for defense is also a problem with the ICC. Proff. Alfred Rubin of Tuffs University explains: "documents and testimony needed for an effective defense are hard to expose, there is no reason to expect the Bosnian Serbs to publish their internal records, or that the Serbian Serbs would want them". Diminished sovereignty Proponents for the ICC also argue the court is meant to compliment the states own criminal justice system, and is
Non- citizen prisoners’ do not have the right of habeas corpus (Haynes, W. 2002, p.5312) because they are not protected by the Constitution. However, they do have basic human rights that need to be met. Citizen detainees do have the writ of habeas corpus (Haynes, W. 2002, p.5312) because they are protected by the Constitution. However what is stated above may not be what the United State Supreme Court thinks. In Boumediene versus Bush case, the court voted that the detainees have the right to habeas corpus, because Cuba’s base is technically American territory.
The protective principle: 4. Disciplinary Principle: - Evidence law is principally about the search for the truth but sometimes needs to be changed to protect people and to look at the purpose of the people. - In relation to this particular act – the government have said that the main objectives of this act are to set in place rules that allow any information that is reliable/likely to lead to the right outcome and relevant (so we don’t let in anything) unless the information will unfairly prejudice a person involved in the court proceeding → seems to embody most objectives except the disciplinary principle. - NB: when unclear about the way evidence law ought to apply in particular scenario, refer to the 3 objectives to determine what outcome would advance the goals in this scenario. Longman warnings: Source: http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/28.%20Other%20Trial%20Processes/longman-warning 8.36 In Longman,[54] a complaint was made more than 20 years after the alleged offence.
Instead the president has to follow the wishes of the Congress and how they want that law to be regulated. Thus proving yet another way Congress can exceed the powers of another branch. Congress also have the power to alter a proposed bill and changing it to better suit their particular views and how they want the law to be constructed. Yes like stated before the president can do this but the judicial system can not. The only thing the judicial system can do is uphold that law the way congress intended but they don’t have the power to change it.
Judges need more discretionary power, as imprisonment is not effective in rehabilitating all offenders. Parliaments should have less influence on the administration of justice. Politicians are wholly concerned with winning votes and decisions they make might be popular with the majority of society but they can be detrimental to the process of rehabilitating offenders, and reducing chances of future recidivism. The legislature should be able to pass laws against any act or omission of duty that results in harm to society but leave the interpretation and application of those laws to judiciary, which is concurrent with the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Judges should be able employ other methods if they feel that they will be more successful.
However, freedom also has its limitations it may not interfere with other privileges or rights. In order to maintain Jefferson’s philosophy on liberty, a compromise must be made between freedom of expression and censorship. Although people are promised by the Constitution a right to freedom of expression, there are certain boundaries which are never to be crossed. It is the responsibility of the government to preserve the law while supporting the people; for the U.S. democracy is run by consent of the people. A prime example of this controversial issue is the system of television ratings.