There are many arguments for and against greater freedom, which is
given to the court of appeal to depart from past precedence. The Court
of Appeal is bound by the decisions, which are made by the House of
Lords and also the European court of justice and that basically they
must follow or accept the decisions, which have previously been made
and apply them to the relevant cases. The European court of justice is
the most significant as its decisions are the most crucial as they
bind all of the courts to act according to decisions which are made by
them. The House of Lords however, is not bound by its own decisions
and can therefore choose to alter its previous decisions on the basis
of them being wrongly applied. Although, however the House of Lords is
also bound by the European Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal is able to go against past precedence on various
occasions for many different reasons, which have been allocated to
them in order to ensure that justice is done without having to change
the way in which precedence is arranged. This rule was actually put
into place as a result of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd 1944
whereby the exceptions to go against precedence were identified. Where
there were conflicting decisions in previous cases which had taken
place within the Court of Appeal where it is left up to the court to
decide which of the decisions it will follow they could go against
past precedence. However, where there had been decision made by the
House of Lords which overrules a court of appeal decision the court of
appeal must follow the decision of the House of Lords. Finally, for
the reason that it was generally felt that the decision was a mistake
and that it was carelessly made because a relevant act of parliament
or other regulation had not been considered by the court. These three
different exceptions provided the court of appeal with greater freedom
effectively, but this has lead to many criticisms as well as responses
Q1 THE COURT/S IN WHICH THE CASE WAS HEARD (OUTLINE THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
Marbury v. Madison: The Legacy of Judicial Review John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history, he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings, explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analyze the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.
The Role of Courts in American Politics The third branch of the federal government is the judicial branch. Before the existence of the Constitution, a system of state courts was in place. Through much controversy and compromise a decision was accomplished, which put in place the Supreme Court. In Article III, Section 1, "The judicial power of the United Statesshall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court was initially set up as a part of the separation of powers in the American political system.
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.
These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning the Supreme Court's power. This is an important debate for America since the Supreme Court can alter the principles that by which we live by. The two positions argue whether or not the judiciary has too much power. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that the judiciary has little power to implement their decisions. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that despite this point, they still practice judicial review. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that the judiciary has too much power is the strongest position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that
There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the
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.
“A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.” Most of the appeals from federal district courts develop into the court of appeals “serving the circuit in which the case was first heard. Federal appellate courts” have required jurisdiction over the agreement of district courts within their boundaries. Unlawful appeals from federal district courts are generally tried by committees of three inspectors situated on a court of appeals instead of by every judge of each boundary. “Appeals generally fall into one of three categories; frivolous appeals, ritualistic appeals,
The Supreme Court is essential to the United States government, even more so, the judicial branch. The Supreme Court aids in protecting the Constitution of the United States, and as a result, protects the American people’s liberties.
Your Honors, we bring to you today a grotesque case of an incident on the high seas. You have read the facts, four men: Mr. Brooks, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Dudley, and Mr. Parker were stranded on an open boat. The first three were able-bodied seamen and the last, Mr. Parker, was a boy not yet eighteen.
The first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing
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’.
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Judicial Precedent "Within the present system of precedent in the English legal system, judges have very little discretion in their decision making." Judges have always been relied upon to interpret and apply the law. Therefore, their decisions should be fair and consistent so as the individuals seeking legal remedies would have more faith in the judicial system of the state. AS the UK has not a very complete and/or codified constitution, this doctrine is very much relied on as contrasted with other countries which seemed to have provisions for virtually any kind of offence, like France or the US where judges had only to refer to legislation.
This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.