The Power of an Unelected Judge
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.
The Charter is a very important form of protection for everyone's rights and freedoms. It can both be a tool and hinder to what many people including myself consider right. The year 1988 is an example of when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was upheld by the supreme court. In Dialogic Judicial Review and its Critics, it states that the supreme court was able to overturn a previous ruling on abortion. Legislative was voting to remove a law that allowed abortion in some certain cases. The law passed in the House of Commons but failed to pass from a vote of unelected offici...
... middle of paper ...
...to recognize an evolving society and through these judges decisions changes can be made as required.
Many people will claim that because they are unelected they cannot speak for the majority of society and therefore should not be able to influence laws. This is not the case however as shown in the examples previous, without unelected judges those positive life changing cases would be much different now. Also, as stated in "Dialogic Judical Review and Its Critics" that legislatures have the power to actually override and change the saying of the judge (Dyzenhaus, David, Arthur Ripstein, and Sofia Reibetanz Moreau. With all the mentioned improvements that these judges have brought and along with the fact that there is always an option to overturned a ruling, I think unelected judges should provide judgements to cases that shape and influence society for the better.
Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist. COMPARISON OF BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CANADIAN CHARTER... ... middle of paper ... ...
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the strong foundation for the diverse country of Canada. They uphold various beliefs and values Canadians may have. Under the constitution in 1982, the CRF (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was entrenched by then Prime Minister Trudeau. The CRF has 4 rights; Equality, legal, democratic and mobility, there is also 4 freedoms; of Conscience and Religion, of thought, belief, expression and media, of peaceful assembly, and Association. If people feel that their right and/or freedom has been violated, they can go to court by using a “Charter Challenge. ” A charter challenge is when something inequitable or unfair has been done, the citizen can pursue the court case stating that something violated their rights and/or freedoms. All the rights and freedoms help
According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78: “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community(Hamilton, Page 8).” The influence of public opinion legislation may be affected by the social majority and violate the constitution, at the same time, this kind of undesirable tendency may cause unfair or biased act violations of human rights. So the judge independence is an important consideration to protect society from the tyranny of the majority of people of this kind of undesirable tendency of incidental. A judge determined not only can reduce the harm of such bill has passed, and can contain the legislature
Judicial Activism- judges should interpret and apply the law in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional. Although the rights and freedoms of Canadians are guaranteed, Sections one and seven of the Charter permit the federal and provincial governments to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians. Section one of the Charter designated ‘Rights and freedoms in Canada’ states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This section is frequently referred to and better known as the reasonable limits clause. The second rights and freedoms limiting section of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’ is Section thirty-three entitled ‘Exception where express declaration’ declares
Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
In no other democracy does a court hold so much political power and in particular power over public policy decisions.
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
views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is a document which brings together all of the Fundamental Human Rights together in one, single document. Before the inception of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the member states of the European Union had many conflicting opinions on what exactly a human right entailed, therefore the need for a single, codified document outlaying the basic Fundamental Human Rights was great. The Charter was issued in 2000 and at this time, according to Jesse Norman, The Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Industry and Energy, ‘The charter was then described as a ‘solemn proclamation’ and was designed to strengthen the EU’S political legitimacy, containing rights and freedoms as well as strengthening the rights of
...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).
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
The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.