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
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 simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
... of the judiciary as being one separate from government, in a non-political capacity whose purpose is not to question the acts of government, but rather to be the mediator when dispute arise (McLachlin, 2009). Clearly, McLachlin captures the essence of what the judiciary is. The Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most visible and trusted political institutions, which has shaped the country’s political arena. In practice, the Supreme Court of Canada does have a quasi-legislative effect on public policy.
It did not originally have the power of judicial review until 1803 in the case of Marbury vs. Madison (Young, 283), which then gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution and overrule any law or action that was unconstitutional. As part of the political system, the selection of judges has choice of the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, federal Judges are in the seat until they resign or die and are independent of the President's influence. (Burns, 360-361) For example, the chief justice of the United States is appointed and holds tenure for life.
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 ...
An advantage of electing judges is that it insures that the judges are loyal to the people
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.
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
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
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.
Democracy is the structure of government still used today in many countries.The definition of democracy is a system of government where people who rule directly are freely elected representatives.In addition, democracy comes from the Greek word demokratia. Demo meaning people and kratia meaning power of rule. For instance, here is an example, Great Britain has a democratic government since elected officials and laws are voted on by the people and also the representatives they elect. Therefore Athens exemplifies a democratic government. “Athenians would meet and vote on a simple question …. is anyone becoming a threat to democracy? If a simple majority voted yes,then they dispersed and reassembled two months later,
Many of the judges can become corrupt over their years of serving. Most judges begin to accept bribes and many different things that will help out one side. They have the power of what can be said in their court and what cannot be. This can make it much easier for them to favor one side or the other. They can also become more of a referee then a judge according to John F. Molloy who wrote the book The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion. This book was about all of the different reasons why he believed the court system was corrupt. He also states that judges will create their own laws based on their own opinions and rulings. Knowing this how are we supposed to believe that we are going to be receiving a fair trial. Are they always going to be siding with the defense team or are they going to be on your
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.
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
What is democracy? Democracy a form of government in which the people freely elect representatives to govern them in a country, democracy guarantees free and fair elections, basic personal and political rights and independent court of law. There are two types of democracy, direct and indirect democracy. Direct democracy or pure democracy is where there is direct participate of the people; people make decisions for them instead of letting them representative make decision for them. Indirect democracy the decisions are made by the representative on behalf of the people that voted for them. All over the world people are having different views with regard to democracy and how it operates. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” ~ Winston Churchill, some have said democracy is the worst government form of government which I also think it’s! Due to the how it operates.