"The Judge's Role Is Not TO Make The Law But To Uphold & Apply The Law.." Agree or Disagree?

Question

What do you think? Should judges act as warriors social change or simply decide all cases based on previous precedent? Why ?

Answer 1

The Judge's only job is to enforce the law. The highest law of the land in the US is the federal Constitution.

However, a judge has to look at more than just precedent. There are a lot of bad decisions that resulted from outside pressure instead of looking strictly at the law. (Roe v. Wade, for example) Racist judges ignored the 14th Amendment for decades because it clearly forbade segregation laws.

When FDR was President, the Supreme Court struck down his socialist New Deal laws because they were unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment. So he blackmailed them into pretending that the due process clause doesn't exist. It wasn't used again until Lawrence v Texas. Ironically, many people claimed that decision was 'judicial activism' even though it was undoing bad precedent caused by FDR's blatant judical activism.

Answer 2

Agree, but the concept is rather abstract. It is still necessary to "interpret" the law, which is not easy to do. It takes discipline and it takes a dedication to the idea that what the judge is trying to do is to figure out what the lawmaker intended.

"But the judge must always remember that he should go no further that he is sure the [lawmakers] would have gone, had [they] been faced with the case before him. If he is in doubt, he must stop, for he cannot tell the conflicting interests in the society for which he speaks would have come to a just result, even though he is sure that he knows what the just result should be. He is not to substitute even his juster will for theirs; otherwise it would not be the common will which prevails, and to that extent the people would not govern."

{Spartacus, I can't even begin to tell you how strongly I disagree with you.}

Answer 3

Some precedents may be antiquated. However once judges start ruling according to their beliefs there may be a problem. Everything is so bi-partisan and religious groups are like lepers trying to influence everything. We would have all types of laws with no basis of fact or reason and they would change every time a new judge is elected.

Answer 4

Many laws are open to interpretation. This is also what a judge does. It is not a judges privilege to make law or change law. However his interpretation is open to debate after a trial is over. that's why precedent carries so much weight in his interpretation. It has already been tried and trued.

Answer 5

that's in simple terms the way conservatives spin it. In authentic life, judges from each and every achievable political perspective specially situations legislate from the bench, and there is not any thank you to show that liberal judges do it greater desirable than any others. whilst a decide says he's following a regulation actually he continues to be analyzing it in simple terms as much as whilst a decide says he's following the point of a regulation, or the spirit of a regulation. each and every perspective is an perspective.

Answer 6

judges make laws
by setting precedents


laws are not limited
to words voted into agreement
before
their enactment

laws
are also
actions
that through reoccurrence
become agreement


we expect that our judges
use their
education and experience
to "interpret" the laws
as the citizens intended

that's what we pay them to do, anyway

we can always kick them out
we have a law about that

Answer 7

Judges jobs are to apply the laws, LEGISLATORS are the ones who make the laws....the more judges we have INTERPRETING laws to fit what they want, the more distorted the laws become, then you have people shouting for more laws, stricter laws, and your justice system gets bogged down and criminals go free....hey wait, that is already happening....