I asked earlier if judges shoul be elected, and most people said no, because then they would just do what most people want. isn't this their purpose as a balance to the judiciary?
2007-03-18 08:57:30 · 9 answers · asked by Gina C 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Some of you are right, i mis-stated. I meant why shouldn't this be a part of the balance provided BY the judiciary.
In fact it actually is now. Most of the US has laws on the books that are never enforced, and would be rejected by some judges as an unequal application of the law in those cases.
2007-03-18 10:14:46 · update #1
The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the U.S. Constitution and not be held accountable to the majority or minority population, lobbyists, religious groups, etc., in any manner, shape or form.
An independent judiciary is the backbone of a free and democratic society. To interpret the laws being enforced as outlined by the U.S. Constitution must be its only duty, even though the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall might offer up a dissenting opinion...
2007-03-18 09:06:53 · answer #1 · answered by marnefirstinfantry 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You've made two 'big mistakes' in your question and the 'explanation' of it that followed. First you have no understanding of the 'job' of a judge, and second, a judge is a member of the 'Judiciary' and not as a 'balance to the judiciary.'
A 'judge' is there to 'rule on points of LAW ... not on 'what the majority of people want' ... and should 'know' or have 'good access to' all of the different LAWS that pertain to a case. If there is a 'jury' seated to decide whether a person is 'guilty or innocent' or to decide what, if any 'monetary awards' should be given, the judge is still there to make sure that everything 'done in court' is LEGAL and BINDING. The 'judiciary' is generally either 'elected' or 'appointed' by the 'executive branch' ... and is the THIRD POWER in a 'triangle' of 'law' ... the 'executive branch' (including president, governors, mayors), the 'legislative branch' (the 'legislature' that is Senators and Congressmen, or 'City Council'), and the 'judicial branch' which is made of the 'courts of law' with JUDGES sitting 'on the bench' ... and the 'highest court in the land' is the Supreme Court in the U.S.
I hope this 'explains' why some people think that judges should not be 'elected' ... although in most places, some judges are 'elected' (non-partisan voting, though ... no PARTY is mentioned when the people 'run' for the 'office' of Judge) and others are 'appointed' ... so you need to 'do some research and find out what is the 'law' on this in your state and/or city and county.
2007-03-18 16:13:59 · answer #2 · answered by Kris L 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the judge is there to oversee the conduct of a trial. It is not his job to interpret the law, but rather to ensure all the laws and rules of evidence are followed appropriately, so that the defendent gets a fair and just hearing.
A judge normally acts as a referee, not an actual judge; he doesn't decide on innocence or guilty, but he does apply the appropriate sentence. This is in a jury trial.
A defendent may opt to be tried just by the judge; and for some matters, there is no right to a jury. In those cases, the judge must both referee the proceedings, and listen to the evidence presented. He then makes a decision based solely on the law, and the evidence presented. He cannot use his own judgement on whether or not a person seems guilty; he can only rely on the evidence presented in court.
Finally, an appeals court judge gets to decide if other judges and courts did their job properly, and whether they really followed the intent of the law. Again, the judge doesn't get to make new law, but he does ensure the current ones have been followed properly.
2007-03-18 17:07:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A judge's job is to follow the rule of law...without passion. In other words if the public got really passionate about a cause they might want something rash done in the heat of the times.
A judge must follow the laws as they have been written by the constitution and amended and refined over our history. A judge is a part of the judiciary by the way. Judge and judiciary are variants of the same word. The balance of powers are divided into Executive (president), legislative (Senate and House of Representatives) and Judiciary. You might enjoy enrolling in a college civics or U.S. hisory class.
2007-03-18 16:09:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Judges are appointed and then retained by the public...so there is public pressure....But a judge's job is to make the trial impartial...and thereby "fair"....this is not very often....most juries convict before the trial is over based on how they feel about the crime. A judge, in a bench trial, must make decide the verdict, he knows he will be under public scrutiny so they tend to side on the air of caution....and heavily on precendent so their decisions will not be appealed. A balanced judiciary is entirely fictional....judges are appointed based upon success in their field as lawyers....and as we all know a good lawyer does what he needs to to win...when they become judges they take this attitude to the bench....some are deviuous...some are honest...but in all they must answer to the public for their actions.
2007-03-18 16:10:55 · answer #5 · answered by Experimental876 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Judges should make their rulings by the rule of law, not what the possibly uninformed public wants.
2007-03-18 16:03:43 · answer #6 · answered by Its Hero Dictatorship 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No that is not their job. Their job is to interpret and enforce the laws and to oversee our judicial system in the courts.
They don't bend to the will of the people. They uphold the law - whether the people like it or not.
2007-03-18 17:03:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You bet it is. Appointed judges is a scary issue.
2007-03-18 16:29:48 · answer #8 · answered by 180 changes 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he must judge by the law not mass opion....
2007-03-18 16:03:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋