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. By giving life tenure to appointed officials, the founding fathers protected them from political pressure. But, by taking away the accountability of these officials, the framers actually produced a perfect opportunity for krytocracy, a government ruled by judges. When a justice, or anyone for that matter, is secured with a job for life, there is not enough incentive motivating him to perform to the best of his ability. If the lifelong term was changed to say, 8 or 12 years, the justices would be more likely to keep the people’s interests in mind and to represent the public instead of being driven by their own selfish concerns. If the judges’ terms were limited, it would allow their actions to be reviewed, analyzed and determined right or wrong by the people. It would kee... ... middle of paper ... ...activism has rampaged this nation for centuries. Because the Judicial branch houses appointed justices and not elected justices, conflicts with democracy because it denies the people the right to vote for who they want to represent them, it gives an enormous amount of power and influence to a few people for too long, and it tolerates justices placing their own interests and tasks ahead of the people’s. The Judiciary is supposed to protect and interpret the constitution and federal laws, not to create new policy for everyone to follow; history has shown what it takes to overcome the inadequacy of unelected Supreme Court Justices. Works Cited Greene, Jamal. “Term Limits for Federal Judges.” New York Times. 8 July 2012. Meese, Edwin. "The Imperial Judiciary—And What Congress Can Do about It." Hoover Institution. Stanford University, 1 Jan. 1997. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Federalist no. 78 is persistent in its sort of justifications of the Constitutions vagueness. The letter claims that the judiciary branch is of the least danger of t...
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
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
Lowi, Theodore, Benjamin Ginsburg. American Government: Freedom and Power. W.W. Norton & Company, New York: 1998.
Lowi, Theodore J, et al. American Government Power & Purpose. 12th Ed. New York: W. W.
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 ...
I think that it is important to remember that the framers were fairly new at creating a government unlike any other government in the world and their main concern was freedom from government control. It appears that their biggest mistake was not applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government. It also becomes problematic in that two men, having different political beliefs and opinions, can interpret the same law in very different ways. Thus, the Supreme Court, established in 1789, which consists of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. In other words, when there is disagreement concerning constitutional law, the Supreme Court settles it. The power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. This in itself has become conflictual due to affiliations which could certainly sway decisions in favor of one particular political
...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).
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"...
In no other democracy does a court hold so much political power and in particular power over public policy decisions.
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.