I think that the recent blogs about when the government should or should not limit Constitutional rights proves not only how ambiguous the law is, but also how fragile it is as well as the necessity of the courts as a form of checks and balances. It seems like for every one of the Bill of Rights a situation has come up or can be imagined in which a restriction on the rights would be justified. It is for this reason that I feel the federal court system is so crucial to the maintenance of our present form of government. While the concept of the “right ruler” who would never abuse the generality of laws is ideal, the possibility is certainly there. If a president were to attempt to take extreme actions in unjustifiably restricting freedoms, the courts would be the citizens’ best ally.
This unfortunately also reveals the great power held by judges in the United States. The Supreme Court especially has an almost completely free reign because of their lack of accountability as life-time appointed judges. Because of this power, I found the Realist theories of adjudication especially interesting. Their concept of fact-responsiveness, seems intuitively true and thus shocking. Again, we are only confident in a judge’s use of experiences and the social circumstances in deciding cases based on the idea of the “right ruler,” and it seems as though that is quite the assumption for an unelected, unaccountable position in the highest court of the country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like the United States court system. I think that it allows for fair justice. We have the right to appeal decisions and most of the more important cases go though a series of courts before being decided on. We also elect officials in many cases because we trust these people with making decisions for us.
ReplyDeleteI am also in favor of our court system. If it is executed correctly, most of the time justice is served. No legal system is perfect, but I feel that ours is pretty close. The situation you stated about the supreme court being the citizen's best ally occurred in the 1930's when FDR was trying to give the NRA (National Recovery Administration) more power than it should have. The courts declared them unconstitutional and put a stop on some of their plans. With out system of checks and balances, and also the courts system of appeals I believe that everyone is treated pretty fairly in the courts.
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying about the courts and that they have too much power, but as you said this is part of the checks and balance system. Each branch has an enormous amount of power and one can easily argue who has the most amount but I think it is pretty equal. They all have different capabilities but all three rely on one another and cannot get things done without the other. Judges don't make laws, they interpret them when they are ambiguous and if the people think they interpreted them incorrectly, one of the other branches will step in and fix the problem.
ReplyDeleteI am not gonna say that our courts or even our government system are 'right'. It would be nice to have a society/law that was unambiguous and without socially influenced problems. I think our court system provides many great aspects to the legal system as a whole, but it can only be bettered by the 'patching-up' of loopholes in the law.
ReplyDelete