Disadvantages Of Judicial Precedents

This week we are to write about the Judicial Branch. I have chosen the high and almighty U.S. Supreme Court. Section 1 of Article III of The Constitution states that there should be a sole high court, the Supreme Court, that shall have the vested judicial powers of the United States. (The Constitution) The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 was the landmark statute that was introduced in the first session of the United States Congress. The Judiciary Act established the United States Federal Judicial Branch. Many feared that establishing all judicial powers into a single court would leave the door wide open for tyranny. Not knowing that the three branches of government have a pretty good checks and balance system. The Act would give the Supreme Court

The branches in the United States government are executive, legislative and judicial. All of these branched function together and are part of the bureaucracy of the United States. When comparing all branches an easy way to look at them is an executive is the law, essentially the president. Whereas legislature is where laws are being made, or denied. Lastly the judicial branch is the supreme court.

The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications. Appointing the judges on the other hand would only benefit that particular party affiliation. The outcome of judges being appointed would ultimately bring more harm than good. The plus for appointments would

What is actually happening is allowing Supreme Court justices to serve for life. An article stated that “by making new appointments less frequent, longer tenure has diminished the abilities of presidents and senators to provide the only form of democratic accountability that is consistent with judicial independence,” (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). William Douglas, who has set record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years) who has cast the deciding vote, along with Hugo Black who retired at the age of 85 and Thurgood Marshall who retired at the age of 83. “ I’m getting old and falling apart,” Marshall said on his last day (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). That’s why it is better to bring fresh perspectives, and especially those people who understand the

When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.

Australia believes that your rights are protected if you’re on the wrong and right side of the law. However, it wasn’t in the Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 case.

Specialized courts are commonly known as the problem-solving courts that promote positive reinforcement, support behavior modification, decrease victimization, and reduce recidivism. Examples of specialized courts include drug court and mental health courts. A community might benefit from establishing a specialized court such as a drug court because it follows a comprehensive model that concentrates on reducing criminal actions through treatment and rehabilitation services with the focus being on substance abuse addiction and identifying the cause without jeopardizing public safety and due process (Specialized Courts, 2013).

Alexander Hamilton believed that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch for several reasons. Perhaps Hamilton felt it is the least dangerous of the three branches of government because it does not make the laws as the legislative branch does; it simply interprets the laws that have been passed by the legislative branch and that have been approved by the executive branch. Also, there was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same influence from a constitutional design standpoint. The effects of this is that the president and congress do have some control over the judiciary branch with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justice. Congress also may impeach judges which is very rare, alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution.

The decision of Mackay v. United States argues against legal retroactive review by claiming that this process undermines the finality of criminal sentencing, thus threatening the efficacy, accuracy, and legitimacy of the criminal sentencing process. Justice Harlan, (who wrote this majority decision), bases these major concerns on the

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative.

The precedent is a decided legal case, which is used as a basis for deciding later similar cases. The English Law system is a legal system where the precedent has a great weight. This law system can be subdivided into two main interrelated branches: statute (or statutory) law and common law. Statute is an Act of Parliament, which starts its life as a bill, goes through the parliament, receives royal assent and becomes law. [5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system.

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial.

The average person today would most likely accept the barbaric act of execution, as an ordinary part of judicial punishments. It’s approved because those given the sentence are “monsters”, and they’re the only one who suffers from the act. However, those who follow fall under that train of thought are both morally and logically wrong. All bias ideas aside you must take notice of the mass amounts of innocent people sentenced monstrous crimes rather pleading to changes out of fear, or simply being extremely lucky and have fallen under those treacherous circumstances. You could only imagine, the thousands of innocent civilians just like you, killed by our government. There’s no need to be put in there shoes to feel the damage, once tax season comes, you’ll get more than the taste of death when the government has to take a healthy portion of your yearly earnings to pay for this act against humanity.

This can be seen by the numerous cases in which judges have stood by this fact. For example, in the case of Public Prosecutor v Datuk Tan Cheng Swee and Anor [1980]

The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.