Judiciary and the Judicial Philosophy

The Judiciary

Hamilton argued that the “Judiciary is the weakest branch of the government” since it lacks armies and the spending power and hence only depends on wisdom. As a result of such claims, mass changes were made to the constitution, empowering the court, especially independence. Therefore, considering the current situation in the United States and the roles that the judiciary plays in the nation’s well-being, I tend to disagree with Hamilton’s arguments. The supreme court, which is part of the judiciary, has made decisions that impact the nation similar to the decision made by the president or Congress; hence cannot be considered weak.

The judiciary is essential in the well-being of a nation as it helps resolve conflicting constitutional challenges, especially during amendments by the legislature. Notably, they are obliged to interpret and apply the law. Hence, in cases where any amendment is initiated, they have to interpret the law and its consequence before it is used. Therefore, most of the decisions made by the supreme court are the results of politics and law (Carpenter, 2005). Among the most famous examples include a decision by the court in 1803, Marbury v. Madison, as it was the first instance that the court declared a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

Additionally, the court has the role of protecting the citizens by supervising the legislature and the executive to avoid misusing their power. Since they are the guardians of the constitution, they ensure the protection of rights by ensuring that citizens are not threatened, or their freedom violated. One of the significant examples was a law in some states whereby the legislature and the government argued that it was fair to provide two equal facilities for the different races. In the case Brown v. Board of Education, the supreme court determined that segregation in public education was unconstitutional as it violated the equality law (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, considering the roles played by the supreme court and its impacts on the nation, the Judicial can be regarded as an equal arm of the government.

Judicial Philosophy

The law is universal as it has to be applied to different situations to cover unique circumstances. As a result, it is highly dependent on the interpretation of the judge depending on how they understand the law and the case. Judicial activism (JA), which in some cases is referred to as “legislating from the bench,” argues that it is right to rule on a case in a specific manner that leads to the desired outcome, regardless of what is written on the law (Grover, 2020). On the other hand, judicial restraint (JR) urges a judge to refrain from deciding unless the decision is fundamental in solving a concrete dispute. The two have several differences as JA argues the court should create better new rules by overturning the bad ones while JR is against this belief as they insist on the court interpreting laws rather than formulation (Menell, & Vacca, 2020). Additionally, while JA advocates for liberalism in politics, JR believes in conservativism.

In most American culture cases, the judges’ decisions are tied to the constitution; hence, judicial restraint is preferred. Considering the diversity of the cases presented to the courts, especially the supreme court, it is essential to allow judicial activism in some cases. Hence, the case’s circumstance should be used as the determinant factor while considering which philosophy to apply (Menell, & Vacca, 2020). Therefore, both philosophies are vital in the American legal system as they enhance justice and fairness; despite being guided by the law, the judge should be allowed to incorporate personal views while making a decision.

References

Carpenter, G. (2005). Without fear or favor-ensuring the independence and credibility of the” weakest and least dangerous branch of government.” Journal of South African Law/Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, 2005(3), 499-513.

Grover, S. C. (2020). Judicial Activism and the Democratic Rule of Law. Springer International Publishing.

Menell, P. S., & Vacca, R. (2020). Revisiting and Confronting the Federal Judiciary Capacity” Crisis”: Charting a Path for Federal Judiciary Reform. Calif. L. Rev., 108, 789.