The Court System And The Justice System

1238 Words5 Pages
In a governmental context, it can be argued that a court system that does not present a unified position when dealing with legislative and executive branch entities is not, in fact, an equal branch of government. The court system, as a whole, and the Supreme Court itself, in most cases where it is involved, want and need to speak in one voice, with a unified message. This, however, is not always the reality that we see. There are sometimes cases where the justices cannot agree on the outcome. Although the outcome favored by the majority always prevails, the dissenting sometimes choose to voice their disagreement in a public opinion in order to advocate for a different policy they themselves regard as more appropriate. These competing voices of the judiciary can undermine the institutional independence of the courts. That is because they encourage, although not always allow, other parts of government to choose the messages they prefer in relation to court policy and administration. This is potentially very damaging both to the actual welfare of court systems and ultimately to the level of respect and attention afforded them. The Supreme Court’s Institutions Shape its Functions The rules and procedures that are in place in the court system dictate what the Court can do and provides it with incentives for shaping politics . This principle is reflected strongly in how the Court exercises its jurisdiction and how the Chief Justice’s exerts her agenda power. In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to review—and affirm or overturn—decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. The Minnesota Suprem... ... middle of paper ... ...charge this duty. Specifically, they expect to obtain their “fair share” of assignments. Failure of a Chief Justice to equitably distribute assignments across Justices will inevitably lead to tension on the Court. Conclusion It has been shown that, as a political entity, the Minnesota Supreme Court and its behaviors can be examined and understood using the three fundamental principles suggested by Lowi et al. (2014). They are the rationality principle—the Court serves the purpose of maintaining the Constitution, the collective action principle—all court decisions are collective outcomes, and the institution principle—the Court’s institutions shape its political function. As the leader of the judiciary branch of the government of Minnesota, the Minnesota Supreme Court part of a system that shares a number of principles through the functions of any entity within it.
Open Document