Judicial Branch Pros And Cons

The judicial review strengthens the constitutional principle of checks and balances. In the 1789 judiciary act and Judiciary act of 1801 had the right to allow the writs of mandamus. Meaning that they court should have power and including the fact that they are forced to do something. John Marshall weakened the power of the supreme court by getting rid of the power. However he did improve the branch by creating the judicial review.

Shortly after, the Court found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicts with the Constitution. Since the Constitution is defined to be a supreme law, the Supreme Court strikes down laws that conflict with the Constitution. In consequence, this case gained the court the power of Judicial Review and maintained the status of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of

Accordingly, Judicial Review was born, it is the power of the courts to review laws, treaties, policies or executive orders relevant to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional. However, some people thought the judicial review gives the Judicial branch unlimited power to do things that against the citizens since they are the las process of making laws, other court cannot overrule them. Also they have a whole life term being judge made them so independent from other branches. Due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role to make sure that each branch of government check and balance the limits of its own power. Also, Judicial review also protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the

Only then will the judges be able to protect the constitution and the rights and privileges of the citizens, along with changing the minds of the framers who thought the judicial branch was weak. Hamilton emphasized that it was necessary for the judicial branch to take advantage of its power of checks and balances and make itself independent, however, still continue to work hand in hand with the

The outcome of this case balanced the privileges and superiority of the three branches, specifically the judicial and executive

In this election year a Supreme Court position opened up following the unfortunate death of justice Antonin Scalia. President Obama, has the ability to nominate a replacement as this is one of his presidential powers. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, as Antonin Scalia’s replacement. After the nomination, Merrick Garland can take the position if the senate approve of the nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block a hearing that would be held to nominate the nominee.

It doesn’t have as many parts to it as the Executive and Legislative Branches. They also don’t do as much as the other branches, because while the Legislative Branch creates Laws and the Executive Branch controls most of the federal organizations the Judicial Branch just hears different cases that appeal through the lower courts. One Example of this is in document B where is says,” The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the

Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.

Acts of Congress: Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 With every well thought out story there always seems to be an unspoken hero. There is always a certain individual that gets the ball rolling, but they never get the credit they deserve. The government of the United States of America is no exception, and they too have such a character in their story. That character would be the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, Article III of the U.S. Constitution never spoke of the definite roles or powers that the Court has the right to obtain, saying, “the Congress should from time to time establish” (Document A). The government was calling for a loose construction, which John Marshall, being a federalist, agreed with. This relaxed form of government gives the judicial branch more power, increasing its privilege. Next, during John Adams presidency, John Adams had proposed that John Jay, an ex-Chief Justice, be given a place on the Supreme Court. Jay rejected the offer, stating how the Court did not possess, “energy, weight, and dignity” (1801)

The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court, which has the right to solve any dispute between national and regional

The act created the federal court system that we still use today. The act also outlined the powers and their relationships to the state court. The act also added the idea that court’s decision is final and that the Supreme court can settle the disputes between states. The Judiciary Act also made it that there was 13 lower courts beneath the Supreme Court. The other act that Washington signed and made to help the country was the Neutrality Proclamation.

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.

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.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time was Chief Justice John Marshall, and he declared that this whole process of delivering commissions for judges, the Judiciary Act, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared this act illegal, because it gave the Supreme Court a power that they were forbidden to have. This is when the first law was declared unconstitutional and judicial review came into