Judicial Precedent
A) Explain what is meant by the doctrine of precedent. (11)
B) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of
precedent? (14)
A) The doctrine of judicial precedent is at the heart of the common
law system of rights and duties. The courts are bound (within limits)
by prior decisions of superior courts. One level includes stare
decisis, this means to stand by what has been previously decided in a
previous case and that this decision should be kept to and that you
should in no way try to unsettle the established.
This can benefit the system of common law because it supports the idea
of fairness and it therefore provides certainty in the law and also
consistency in the law. Another aspect of stare decisis that concerns
the court hierarchy is that decisions that are made in the higher
court must be followed by the lower courts and the same decisions must
be followed at all time.
This leads me on to my next point about the court hierarchy. Under
stare decisis the courts must follow the judgments that were made by
their superior courts. In the civil system, this is as follows. The
main court is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The decisions that
are made here bind all of the lower courts to it. For example a
decision that was made in the ECJ must be followed in the House of
Lords (HOL.) again the decisions that are made in the HOL must be
followed in the Court of Appeal (COA) (this is however only in the
civil division for civil cases), once again the decisions made in the
COA must be followed by all the divisional courts, and the high courts
must follow these decisions and finally the co...
... middle of paper ...
...ar case that is going on? The answer
that should come from this is that the COA should be bound like all
other courts and stick to past decisions that have been made, but once
again the problem with this is that not every case is the same and can
not all follow the same structure as there are different points to
consider in ever case that comes forward to a court.
Finally the other disadvantage that has arisen is that is the decision
that is being made in the best interests of the public, as there could
be a judgment that upsets the public and one that they could be
strongly opposed to, does the fact that there could be trouble from a
decision that has been made make it acceptable to change the judgment
of a court or should all courts follow the decisions that it is bound
by, no matter what the public opinion may be.
The issue of whether reasonable care was implemented by the driver is not determined by whether or not he could have reacted differently so as to produce a different outcome.
latter methods could allow a person to commit murder and easily get away with it.
in my mind, is not valid simply because of what it might do to the
armbands was a silent form of expression and that students do not have to give
On June 26, 2015, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the decision on Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. This controversial decision overturned the law of more than 17 states. In the 5-4 decision, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority and Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were dissenting. At the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of judicial restraint and judicial activism. Was the Obergefell decision an example of judicial activism? Certainly, because it declared state laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The Court’s decision, which was based on precedent and interpretation of the Constitution, was just.
Under Article III of the Constitution the judicial branch was established, but rather implicit in proportion to the other two branches of government. This ambiguity allocates various opportunities for interpretation of judicial power. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton addresses the role of the judiciary branch within the federal government in regards to political immunity of judges through life tenure and contribution to checks and balances through power or judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall, in his ruling of Marbury v. Madison, established the principle of judicial review advocated by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Originally designated as the weakest of the three branches in government by the framers of the Constitution, the Judiciary has accumulated an increase in political influence through judiciary review and has proven to be an essential institution in the separation of powers as well as an active participant in the system of checks and balances.
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.
changed in terms of its power of deciding cases. It has on the other hand
During the late 1800’s to the mid 1900’s, the United States was tainted by the stain of the slavery era, especially in the southern states. There was a great prejudice against blacks and the white majority was able to prevent them from practicing their basic rights, especially the right to vote and the right to get an education. When people started to question why there should be this segregation within society, they brought the issues to the United States Supreme Court. These conflicts resulted in the Supreme Court cases, Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, two of the most influential court cases in United States history.
Warren Earl Burger was born September 17th, 1907 in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was of Swiss and German ancestry and served as the 15th Chief Justice to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating from St. Paul College of Law in 1931, the lifelong republican held many various positions in the legal system while working his way to the top. Burger focused mainly in the areas of corporate law, real estate and probate law, while at the same time becoming involved in politics. Furthermore, he was involved in many successful campaigns which brought attention to himself by prominent republicans. His appointment to the U.S Court of Appeals quickly built his background as a law and order judge. Serving in the circuit courts for a mere thirteen years led to his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1969 by President Richard M. Nixon. Once appointed Chief Justice, Burger presided over numerous cases, Burger’s goals as Chief Justice was to modernize and streamline the courts to make them more accessible and functional, along with originating the idea of employing professional court administrators, implementing continuing education for judges, and improving coordination between federal and state courts, in addition to being noted for his outspoken criticism of ill-prepared litigators who used the jobs as a way of on-the-job training (Facts, 1996). While serving in the Supreme Court, Justice Burger was involved in many important cases.
but I do not think that the proper solution is one that is given enough consideration: Not
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.
These parts of the act can be used so long as they do not conflict