The biggest legal influence that determines the decision of judges is the law itself. Judges have the ability to make their own decisions in cases but they must follow the laws, they do not have free reign. When a judge is reviewing a case, it is critical that they know the facts. The facts of a court case are all of the relevant circumstances of an offense or legal dispute as determined by a court (Patterson, 2013). It is essential for the judge to know the facts of a case because it helps the judge determine which law(s) are pertinent in the case (Patterson, 2013). Sources that influence the decisions of the judiciary: the U.S. Constitution, statutory and administrative law, and precedent. Judges must uphold the laws written in the Constitution while using some degree of discretion in their judgements. Statutory law …show more content…
A study done by Jeffrey Segal and Harold Spaeth demonstrate the Supreme Court’s justices tend to vote in line with their personal political opinions (Patterson, 2013). The Supreme Court’s decisions are of often a “mix of law and politics” (Patterson, 2013). The judiciaries uphold the law but their political views can sway their rulings. Outside court influences can be from the public. While judges do not typically strive to have the popular public opinion as politicians do, they can make their rulings in an effort to get support from the public or reduce public opposition (Patterson, 2013). Interest groups are also outside political influences on the court. Interest groups want judges appointed who share their legal viewpoint. Elected government officials also influence the court (Patterson, 2013). The President is expected to enforce court decisions and Congress has the ability to rewrite legislation that judiciary may have misinterpreted (Patterson, 2013). Therefore, the judiciary might feel added political pressures when making their
From 1992 to 2005, the Supreme Court’s decisions mostly mirrored public opinion. After Rehnquist’s passing in 2005, the Supreme Court has swung more in the direction of the conservative party than in pervious years. The conservative agenda is becoming more prominent than it was under Rehnquist and before O’Connor retired. Besides swing the court to the consertive side, Rehnquist’s passing also ended the longest running group of Justices to serve together. They had...
...09). Congress is supposed to enact laws, and the ability of judges to modify them with court decisions shows how their power may extend past what the system of checks and balances had intended. The last aspect that shows how powerful this branch may be is the judges. Originally, the lifetime appointment was supposed to relieve them of pressures when deciding cases, but this serves as a double edged sword. Judges without fear of retribution shows the amount of power that they posses. Overall, the development of judicial review, judges lifetime appointment, and ability to modify laws has led to an unbalance of power by the Judicial Branch among the three branches of government.
Since Marbury v. Madison the federal courts not only have usurped power, but they have changed the core function of the judiciary, interpreting the law; thereby, behaving likes an Olympian council. SCOTUS has even set themselves above all other branches of the federal government by declaring that they are the “supreme law of the land.” 8 Today SCOTUS engages in judicial activism, making determinations based on their personal policy preferences as opposed to the rule of law. They claim that the Constitution evolves, that it changes in regards to social agreement, it is a living document; thus, making decisions based on their will and not that of American citizens.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
I think that it is important to remember that the framers were fairly new at creating a government unlike any other government in the world and their main concern was freedom from government control. It appears that their biggest mistake was not applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government. It also becomes problematic in that two men, having different political beliefs and opinions, can interpret the same law in very different ways. Thus, the Supreme Court, established in 1789, which consists of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. In other words, when there is disagreement concerning constitutional law, the Supreme Court settles it. The power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. This in itself has become conflictual due to affiliations which could certainly sway decisions in favor of one particular political
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a conceptual analysis of Richard Posner's empirical theory of judicial behavior. His theory opposes the conventional view which holds that judges are insulated from external pressures so their judicial decisions will be based upon a disinterested understanding of the law. Since economics holds that all people — including judges — attempt to maximize their utilities, Posner thinks that the conventional view is an embarrassment which presumes judges are not rational. His theory holds that the judicial insulation has actually left judges maximizing their utilities by trading judicial utility against leisure utility. Posner's theory presents a challenge to the hope for a disinterested judiciary. It threatens as well to eliminate the philosophy of law by reducing it to what he calls antecedent conditions.
Government officials serving in the Judiciary branch hold incredible power, not only due to judicial review, but also because they are insulated from the American people. Supreme Court Justices are unelected and hold lifelong terms in office. Officials that are appointed by the President or a party usually have that person or party’s interests in mind. This action is not democratic because it allows the Judicial Bench to be stacked with a singular party’s morals and beliefs. This phenomenon contradicts all aspects of democracy by giving indispensable powers to these officials for life, by taking away the people’s right to representation by election, and by allowing certain degrees of judicial activism. Unelected judges that make important decisions for the American Government are not held responsible or accountable for any actions that appear to be wrong in the public’s eye because they cannot be removed from office except when having been convicted of a felony.
Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
For example, the judiciary has declared has declared 100 plus federal laws to be unconstitutional. In addition, depending on the political leanings of the justices, as well as the political leanings of the time, the judiciary can radically reshape public policy. Consequently, the Supreme Court should not have the ability to so drastically shape the principles of the country.
...ies. Depending on the states’ political culture, the judge is elected through popular election either with partisan or nonpartisan elections. The political culture of the state affects the judges’ capabilities to make decisions. Judges are to uphold strict interpretation based on past precedent but it is difficult with social pressure. For example, moralistic Massachusetts passed civic unions for gays, however, in traditionalistic state Georgia would likely deny gay rights.
First of all, judges play an essential role in our democracy, by interpreting the law and being impartial, they make decisions which keeps our country in a democratic state. Judges promote and support charter rights, including freedom and equality. A strong case that proves that judges are an essential part in a democracy is shown in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, John Obergefell was fighting for the legalization of same - sex marriage in The United States. On November 2014, the case went to the supreme court where it caught the attention of the nation. Obergefell was not only fighting for his own rights
In the modern court, Justices use oral arguments to gather information about policy that is not presented in the briefs. Moreover, Johnson argues that oral arguments serve to uncover certain policy issues in a case (Johnson 3). For that reason, the proceedings might have an affect the court’s decision. Furthermore, some issues of policy raised by judges might have to do with the current state of the law. However, for Justices it is important to find policies closest to their own values and preferences. In addition, the personal life experience of justices, ideology, political identification might play a role in their vote. Therefore, oral arguments help Justices raise questions about policy preference in order to make more informed decisions when voting on a
...it from protecting the rights of minorities and from becoming a true proponent of social change. In conclusion, the Court is a somewhat constrained institution in that it only responds to the demands and whims of society. The Court's dependency upon society for case initiation as well as case enforcement prevents the Court from rendering decisions entirely opposed to societal opinion, thus why the Court can never fully lead social change within the United States. This is why, “at its best the Court operates to confer legitimacy, not simply on the particular and parochial policies of the dominant alliance, but upon the basic patterns of behavior required for the operation of a democracy” (Dahl 295).
The debate over the legitimacy of the role of judicial review in the United States constitutional democracy has been around since the creation of the Constitution. The power of judicial review can be considered antidemocratic because it isn’t directly stated in the Constitution, of the authority of unelected judges and the fact that it sometimes resists the majority. Despite these claims, I believe judicial review is a constitutional doctrine, which arose from the historical process of persuasive reasoning in rulings, institutional prestige, the cooperation of political branches, and general public opinion.
After oral arguments, Justices have their conference discussions about the case, which serve two purposes. First, during these conferences, the Justices discuss new issues brought up during the proceedings that were not disclosed in the briefs (Johnson 84). Second, during these discussions, Justices address how external actors might react to their decisions (Johnson 85). As stated by Justice Stevens, oral arguments raise issues about policy that are not included in the briefs for the Justices to consider when making decisions (Johnson 91). This is why Justices must have all the information needed about the policy preferences of all external actors in order to set the boundaries for themselves and avoid backlash (Johnson 85). For that reason, the information that Justices learn during oral argument helps them get clarity on specific as they became known during the proceedings (Johnson 95). The majority of the issues raised during oral arguments have to do with the Justice’s the public policy preference of external actors’ policy. Other issues raised by Justices during oral arguments have to do with political policy. The reason political policy questions are raised is to avoid backlash from political actors. As a result, oral arguments help justices in their decision-making process (Johnson