The judiciary is one of the three branches of government; however, it is not directly or indirectly elected, unlike the executive and legislature. At face value, this may indicate that the judiciary is wholly undemocratic, as it holds a great deal of power which lacks input from the will of the people. Democracy is by definition “of the people, by the people, for the people”. However, in practice, the judiciary is influenced both directly by the people and by the other elected branches of government. The vast majority of its decisions are not creating law, but merely enforcing the will of the other branches of government. Furthermore, it conforms to the standards of a liberal democracy by protecting minority and individual rights from the other
…show more content…
The judiciary does not assume the same role as the executive or legislature. It is seen as a ‘neutral’ or politically independent part of government, not influenced by party politics. In Chief Justice John Robert’s nomination speech, he famously said ‘The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.’ In fact, judges often make decisions that go against their own political opinions simply because they are upholding laws or precedents that oppose them. For example, Justice Kennedy wrote of Texas v Johnson ‘The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result.’. The vast majority of the work of judges is not deciding important social or political issues, but enforcing clearly set out laws or debating highly technical legal cases. Landmark cases such as abortion policy are in the small minority of cases decided. The courts are not acting as a ‘counterpower’ to democracy by creating policy outside the democratic sphere of influence but merely …show more content…
Before making decisions on policy, cases must be brought to a court by individuals, and often only reach courts with multiple appeals. Judges may also be constrained by past precedent, or be reluctant to get involved in areas such as foreign policy. This is because judges have a ‘constitutional limit’, so while they may be able to interpret parts of the constitution beyond their original meaning, they are unable to create entirely new policy decisions. Additionally, judges are often reluctant to confront the other branches of government. Decisions such as King v Burwell, which upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional indicate that the judiciary respects the democratic mandate that the other two branches have. Courts also have little to no enforcement power. The decision of Brown v Board of Education by the Supreme Court in 1954 was not able to be enforced until federal troops were used by the executive to forcibly desegregate schools. Furthermore, decisions to limit the executive or legislature have often been ignored. Cases such as Boumediene v Bush (2008) which reached the verdict that Guantanamo Bay must be closed was unable to be enforced upon the executive branch. Courts decisions can easily be avoided by the other branches of government without just ignoring them. After President Clinton
The judiciary does not assume the same role as the executive or legislature. It is seen as a ‘neutral’ or politically independent part of government, not influenced by party politics. In Chief Justice John Robert’s nomination speech, he famously said ‘The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.’ In fact, judges often make decisions that go against their own political opinions simply because they are upholding laws or precedents that oppose them. For example, Justice Kennedy wrote of Texas v Johnson ‘The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result.’. The vast majority of the work of judges is not deciding important social or political issues, but enforcing clearly set out laws or debating highly technical legal cases. Landmark cases such as abortion policy are in the small minority of cases decided. The courts are not acting as a ‘counterpower’ to democracy by creating policy outside the democratic sphere of influence but merely …show more content…
Before making decisions on policy, cases must be brought to a court by individuals, and often only reach courts with multiple appeals. Judges may also be constrained by past precedent, or be reluctant to get involved in areas such as foreign policy. This is because judges have a ‘constitutional limit’, so while they may be able to interpret parts of the constitution beyond their original meaning, they are unable to create entirely new policy decisions. Additionally, judges are often reluctant to confront the other branches of government. Decisions such as King v Burwell, which upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional indicate that the judiciary respects the democratic mandate that the other two branches have. Courts also have little to no enforcement power. The decision of Brown v Board of Education by the Supreme Court in 1954 was not able to be enforced until federal troops were used by the executive to forcibly desegregate schools. Furthermore, decisions to limit the executive or legislature have often been ignored. Cases such as Boumediene v Bush (2008) which reached the verdict that Guantanamo Bay must be closed was unable to be enforced upon the executive branch. Courts decisions can easily be avoided by the other branches of government without just ignoring them. After President Clinton