What is a democracy? The United Sates president Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” (1863). The Oxford dictionary’s definition of democracy states that, “ A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (2015). Democracy plays a vital role in our nation. The citizens of the nation vote for who they believe is the best fit for government. The government appoints individuals to take down roles as cabinets and judges. What is the duty of a judge? The definition used by the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA) states, “Judges play many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, …show more content…
Judges could also be considered more powerful than the prime minister or president because it is the Supreme Court that makes laws for the country. Judges have an essential role in democracy by supporting human rights and setting new precedents in controversial cases. However, judges could also be a possible threat towards democracy. Judges could be threats to democracy due to corruption and biased opinions on cases. To sum it up, judges play a vital role in democracy because without judges democracy will not function without them. 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 …show more content…
This is because although they are equipped to make informed, balanced decisions given their extensive judicial experience, external powers or influence can lead to biased rulings made by judges. Overall, judges opinions are neutral, free of bias and made in a professional capacity given the extensive education and experience required to become a judge. The long lasting issue of euthanasia in Canada has been the perfect example of how judges could be shown as both a threat, yet also an essential role to a democracy. What is euthanasia? The Oxford dictionary’s definition states, “The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” (2015). For years, the controversial issue of euthanasia has been shown up in our courts. Before 2015, most cases involving euthanasia resulted in loss. This is where judges were shown as a threat to democracy. Judges were shown as a threat because they did not allow these individuals to have their fundamental human rights. If an individual has the right to live they should have the right to die. This was all changed on February, 6th 2015, with the case of Carter v. Canada when, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canadian Criminal Code prohibitions on voluntary euthanasia (section 14) and assisted suicide (section 241(b)) violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. This legalized
One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson
On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power. This view sees that there are certain conditions which allow the court to cause social change.
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 ...
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary Democracy is a form of government by the people; especially: rule of the majority(Webster). This is what the United States is represented as, and this is based on the United States Constitution from which the United states draws all legal powers. In Robert Dahls book How democratic Is the American Constitution? He challenges this idea by trying to appeal to his readers in a way that they may view the United States Constitution in a different light. Dahl does this by pointing out flaws that the Constitution has and, draws on facts based on the other democracies around the world that the United States is compared too. He points out how many democratic ideas and innovations have a occurred since the conception of the American Constitution yet it has only adopted some of those idea.
Judges can also change laws in court. The laws that are changed in court by a judge are usually less predictable and are harder to be controlled thank congressional changes
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.
It is my belief that an unelected judge should have power over decisions regarding the creation and altercation of laws. The issue of whether or not a judge should be a part of the law making process can arise from dialogue theory. Judges have the power to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when imposing a new law or ruling down on a case. Dialogue theory claims that if a judge uses their own judgement to make rulings it could lead to overlooking long time problems or it might be more influenced on personal gain (Dyzenhaus, David, Arthur Ripstein, and Sofia Reibetanz Moreau 592). In fact giving unelected judges this ability allows them to make laws based on the charter being enforced or even differentiate from it if the case requires, a judge must also provide logical explanation behind everything they choose to impose and through these changes it can actually lead to very positive differences in our society. Although unelected judges have to make very controversial and moral decisions, with the combination of the charter of rights and freedoms and their own reasoning they are a crucial part of any nations growth.
Democracy word means control or govern the country with majority opinion and different bodies plays key roles in keeping the meaning of democracy. Out of all the bodies judicial system is considered as vital system in keeping the system in place with defending the rights of public and keeping space for government administration and at times takes the additional role of liaising in between government and people in situation where deference of opinion arises and judge acts as the decision/suggestion maker by standing in a neutral
Now in one stance because democracy allows citizens the most control over our government, to elect our judges may seem like it’s the best method of selection. Judges who go through this type of selection seem to be friendlier and appear to get more done, but the elected judges
Democracy can be defined as a form of government, where a constitution guarantees basic personal and political rights, fair and free elections, and independent courts of law. Democracy has affected Canada in different ways but, although Democracy is a general concept for a governing process but can have quite different manifestations because of the exercising of decision-making, subject to rule of law and rights and freedoms of individuals.
Their long term in office liberates judges from partisan burdens and inhibits attacks on judicial power by the executive and legislative branch. Independence gives the judicial branch the ability to guard the Constitution and the rights of the people against the legislature. That means that he believes that the judicial branch is less likely to abuse a person's as compared to the executive or legislative. He felt that judges should have independence from the sanction of the executive, legislature, and the individuals so they can satisfy the judicial qualities defined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution offers that federal judges are selected to life term thru good behavior, so the courts can remain independent from the other two
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012
An advantage of electing judges is that it insures that the judges are loyal to the people
Judicial review promotes democracy when the political system poses a threat to democratic reform. It can also serve as a supervisor for Congress and the President to make sure they are not overstepping their boundaries. It is an imperfect constitutional institution. And yet, judicial review is not inherently anti-democratic as it is a necessary proceeding for the functioning of the US system of government and democratic society.
Democracy refers to a system of governance in which the supreme powers are vested in the hands of people and is exercised by them indirectly or directly through a system of representation which involves periodic free and fair elections (http://www.zesn.org.zw/publications/publication_280.pdf). Most importantly, the rule of is needed to ensure that governors are held accountable through elections that are free and fair (Rose, R 2009)