Judiciary and Politics

Student’s name

Professor’s name

Course

Date

Judiciary and Politics

The founders wanted the courts to be ​protected ​from politics. In what ways was the judiciary designed to hinder the effect of politics? Are the courts completely immune from politics? Why is it desirable to hinder the effect of politics in the judicial process? Are there times when politics should be part of the judicial process? There are ways in which the judiciary is structured in a way that is meant to hinder the influence of politics. One of the ways includes judicial review. Judicial review can be defined as the power manifested in the supreme court giving them power over constitutionality of the laws. There are numerous political strains through the court and the decisions that are made and approved by the courts. This leads to the problem of ongoing protection in the court systems. It is as a result of these problems that the courts find it necessary to hinder the effect of politics in any judicial process because if politics are integrated into the judicial process then there will be complications when it comes to policymaking for the general public and also resolving issues related to public policies. Therefore, in any instance that the court gets involved with politics there is always an issue when solving the problem and there is a need for a judicial review. The other way of having judiciary designed in the manner that it limits politics is to have a strong judiciary that is capable of having a prominent effect in the affairs of the government. This structure helps maintain individual and government rights. This ensures that the citizens’ liberties are secured and the courts’ decisions prevent the violation of the liberties and the rights of the common people. Limited government constitutes the idea from the constitution that gives the idea of the government being restricted from influence in the courts CITATION Wal161 l 1033 (Waldron).

Life tenure is essential for all federal judges. This is because there is a necessity of the judicial branches to be able to have the protection of the rights of individuals from the majority. This is because a permanent judge can be free from political stress and this enables them to carry out their judicial functions from any influence from the congress and the president. The other reason is that this is vital since it requires one to have many years of experience and practice for an individual judge to comprehend laws and have a full grasp of major content. In the long term aspect, the term limits of the federal judges usually have a considerable damaging effect when it comes to the stability of the doctrine. This for instance where a case can go from sure win to a sure lose over an election. Therefore, the doctrinal instability would seemingly change the jurisprudential evolution of nature and also the litigants’ focus. The court could also be further being politicized by the lower court judges and the policymakers from the doctrine to the composition of the courts. However, as much as there are good points that support the term limits of federal judges there should be a consideration of the potential dangers that can occur such as a significant alteration of the judicial system CITATION Fis19 l 1033 (Fiss).

Ideological changes in the supreme court composition have always led to the courts’ rejection of an existing precedent or creation of a new precedent. This is attributed to the fact that ideological differences and changes have always had an impact on the decisions made by the court since the creation of the supreme court. Judges are biased and the votes taken are usually influenced by their ideological preference. This fact establishes that there are limited case decisions made by the courts. Decision making is crucial by the courts since it creates an environment where the type of decision made is influenced by different ideological preferences. Therefore, there is need to have experience especially old experience to defend their conclusions in the form of precedents. Therefore, judges are allowed to hold their jobs as long as they display good behavior and this essentially means that they have life appointment meaning that they get paid regularly and never can their pay be reduced while serving terms in the office CITATION Gib15 l 1033 (Gibson).

The independence of the Judicial Branch together with the policies and the laws of the local state and national governments are usually unconstitutional as spelt by the constitution. Besides, the independence of the Judicial branch empowers them to make any declaration on whether certain actions by the executive and the legislative branches of government meet the validity criteria or not. article III of the Constitution clearly outlines the power and who possess it and subsequently describes how to check the powers of the government. Additionally, it describes in details the powers of the states CITATION Sci15 l 1033 (Scirica).

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Fiss, Owen M. “The right degree of independence.” In Transition to Democracy in Latin America (2019): 55-72.

Gibson, James L., and Michael J. Nelson. “Is the US Supreme Court’s legitimacy grounded in performance satisfaction and ideology?” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2015): 162-174.

Scirica, Anthony J. “Judicial Governance and Judicial Independence.” NYUL Rev. 90 (2015): 779.

Waldron, Jeremy. Political theory. Harvard University Press, 2016.

.