Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important for the idea of separation of powers.
The disadvantages of having a judiciary that is seemingly too independent include possible abuse of power by judges. Self-interest, ideological dedication and even corruption may influence the decisions of judges without any checks and balances in place to prevent this abuse of power if the judiciary is completely independent. [5]
A further development in English thought was the idea that the judicial powers should be separated from the executive branch. This followed the use of the juridical system by the Crown to prosecute opposition leaders following the Restoration, in the late years of Charles II and during the short reign of James II (namely, during the 1680s). [11]
The judicial branch of government holds powers as well. They have the ability to use express and concurrent powers to make laws and establish regulations. They use express powers to interpret laws and perform judicial review. Implied powers are used by this branch to declare laws that were previously passed by a lower court unconstitutional.
Judicial independence is regarded as one of the foundation values of the Australian legal system, [1] such that the High Court held in 2004 that a court capable of exercising federal judicial power must be, and must appear to be, an independent and impartial tribunal. [2]
Judicial immunity is a form of sovereign immunity, which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions. [1] It is intended to ensure that judges can make decisions free from improper influence exercised on them, contributing to the impartiality of the judiciary and the rule of law. [ 2 ]
They also worry that term limits would foster legal instability, increase partisan bickering, further politicize the Supreme Court, undermine its perceived legitimacy, and weaken its independence.
The most important questions of analytic jurisprudence are: "What are laws?"; "What is the law?"; "What is the relationship between law and power/sociology?"; and "What is the relationship between law and morality?" Legal positivism is the dominant theory, although there is a growing number of critics who offer their own interpretations.