In 2000, during the American presidential elections, the role of the Supreme Court was highly contested. Indeed, it consists of a majority of judges appointed by republican presidents and it decided to stop counting the voices manually in contested towns in Florida and George Bush won the election. From this very simple example, we can understand the importance the judges may have in everyday life. That's why we have to pay attention to the role of courts and judges in our democracies in detail. First, we need to define what a court is. It is a kind of deliberative assembly with special powers to decide certain kinds of judicial questions. It will consist of parties and their attorneys, bailiffs, reporters and sometimes a jury. A court is a place, used by a power base to adjudicate disputes and dispense civil, labor, administrative and criminal justice under its laws, something we may call a "public forum".
[...] We can find the same idea of exchange and debate between individuals. A forum may signify a debate with a definite theme, but more recently a new meaning has appeared, thanks to the spread of the Internet. A forum is a virtual place where everybody can give his opinion on the subject which is debated and read the thoughts of other people. There is a real discussion. In allowing this, a forum is a highly democratic place where everybody is free to speak and to give their opinion to keep the discussion moving. [...]
[...] Courts are unelected tyrants The birth of power by the judiciary” theory Marbury v. Madison (1803) In the US presidential of 1800, Jefferson defeated the federalist candidate John Adams. After 12 years in power, Adams wanted the federalists to continue to play a role in the US government. That is why, before leaving the power, Adams decided to nominate more than 200 loyal supporters to new offices. By making Federalists judges that would serve for life, Adams was trying to keep Jefferson and his party from changing things too much. [...]
[...] He wants the Supreme Court to be invested with the power and the authority to interpret the laws, as long as the Court uses its authority to protect and promote the rights of citizens. - but a respect for the decisions of the legislator, e.g. Roosevelt Sometimes, judges have broken the legislator's decisions because of an ideological opposition to him, as the Supreme Court did at the beginning of the 20th century when it opposed Roosevelt and the New Deal. [...]
[...] Indeed, the political role of the Supreme Court is such important that many people interested in law consider several periods of the court political opinion: 1801-1835: the founder court 1835-1936: the conservative court 1953-1986: the emancipatory court 1986- : the reductive court The political tendency of the court depends a lot on the process of nomination of Supreme Court. The current judicial system remains controversial because of beliefs of bias in appointments that has existed since the creation of the Court. That is why the reductive court is linked with Reagan presidency. The control of constitutionality exists in many countries. Since World War II, more than 80 countries have transferred a startling amount of power from elected legislatures to unelected courts. [...]
[...] It is thus necessary for them to gather information about foreign law and to discover foreign case law through lawyers whose role is also to be open- minded. In doing this, the point is not to import foreign principles or foreign values, but to learn lessons from foreign experiences. Conclusion Judges are unelected and their legitimacy is not like the president's. However, the judges do not govern their country: they only have the power of impeachment and a power of interpretation. In the US, courts are especially supposed to be counterweights. So they are not tyrants at all. [...]
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture