1. Describe these two judicial philosophies. Judicial Activism is when judges/courts do not strictly stick to the interpretation of a law, but create a new one. Easily explained, when an issue is being ruled upon, courts establish a new law to rule broadly on the issue rather than limit their verdict. A lot of magistrates go beyond the constitution and statutes words and use their own political and personal thoughts.
The tenure in which the judges hold during good behavior is their biggest protection and creates the separation from other branches. Their life tenure protects them from the political pressure and invasions by the executive and legislative branch. The judicial branch has by far
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
Judicial review is the right, or duty, the court has to review the constitutionality of legislation and/or actions taken by the executive branch. The court has the right to choose its cases, but these are brought before them not sought after by the court. What is the separation of powers? This is a form of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. They are in place so as to contain the power of any one branch attempting to overstep its authority and act in a tyrannical matter.
But in reality, especially in the “domain of foreign affairs”…the central legal issues rarely come before the Court at all. The law is effectively settled within the executive branch or by the informal agreements between the president and Congress” (Caplan 21). The other branches of government are aware of the overuse of presidential power but do not know how to address the issue to somehow resolve or better the situation. Too much executive power could lead to the abolishment or stacking of Congress, the judiciary system, the House and the Senate. By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship.
The reason it is the most democratic is because the judicial branch has to be unbiased. The unbiased will protect the majority and minority. Although the people do not elect members to the judicial branch, the people’s interests are in mind when making a decision. Both the majority and minority have an equal statute is in the judicial branch. The judicial branch has a non-partisan point of view to the Law.
Thus stating that Supreme Court did act a partisan political body rather than being a neutral arbiter of the constitution. John Marshall was first able to see a case causing a precedent to Judicial Review in
This could not be further from the truth. When citizens exercise their right to vote and circumspectly observe candidates true values and concerns, they will then become the empowered to force change. When such actions are done, “The end result would shift power not from the prosecutor to the defendant but back into the hands of citizens fulfilling their constitutional duty of standing between the accuser and the accused (Hall,
Court History and Purpose 1 Court and Its Purpose The judicial system interprets and applies the law through a system of courts, each with a specific position and function. The judicial system serves a very important purpose in interpreting the law. Its purposes is to fairly administer justice, protect rights and liberties, settle disputes, and interpret the Constitution. The three main functions of courts are upholding the law, protecting individuals, and resolving disputes. (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011).
This was to help keep someone from making the democracy into a monarchy for one example. Another would be that the Articles of Confederation allowed for a strong legislature for the states, but the executive branch was basically nonexistent or was without enough power to override laws that would be against basic human rights.