Should judges be expected to uphold their own personal morals or the morals of the court?

Question

I know judges are appointed, and with that position comes respect of due law and fair judgment. Should judges be expected to uphold their own personal morals as law, or uphold the existing established laws as the "moral authority"?

Answer 1

As simple as possible, the job of a judge is to follow and uphold the Constitution. The Law is the law and this is what they should follow. All people have a moral compass, judges included, but the duty of a judge is to follow the established laws. If a judge feels one way and the law plainly says otherwise, its is their obligation to follow the precedented law. On the other hand, the USA would not be where it is today if judges simply held to established laws. Sometimes it is necessary to push the envelope, but the timing and circumstances must be right. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut regardless of what is precedented.
This is very rare though, and for a rule of thumb, a judge should uphold the Constitution first and foremost.

Answer 2

Judges should be expected to uphold every letter of the law first and foremost. The only problem with that is that it is often not perfectly clear what the law says. In a case where the law can be left to a personal interpretation, a judge must use his or her own moral judgement to make the decision. We really wouldn't need judges if everything was black and white, but the law should always come first.

Answer 3

Judges have the responsibility of upholding the law at all times.

Answer 4

What is meant by "the morals of the court"? I have not heard of that.
As a lawyer, I sometimes give legal advice. (This is not one of those times.) People occasionally will use words like "right", "wrong", or "moral". I been known to say that for morality, they should consult a clergy-member of their chosen faith, if any. That I can tell them only what the "law" is. I also differentiate somewhat between "justice" and "law". Law is law--and that's what judges should apply.

Answer 5

There is no such thing as morality there is legality and technicality and as horrifying and unjust as that seems that is life within the criminal justice system sort of an oxymoron eh? But think of it like this, if every single court/judge based their decisions on moral convictions and such imaging the state of dissarray, what is moral to you, may be immoral to others and so on, so how we can we judge morality? Our churches attempt to establish moral code and do we follow? Yes and no, the Bible attempts to establish moral code, but how do you do so to an agnostic? Do you catch my drift, the phrase moral authority can only be based upon one's individual interpretation, its just like saying a jury of our peers, yah, right thats wishful thinking, so my friend look at this from all angles of life and culture also dictates moral codes, just try to convince yoruself that some of us try to live our lives in a just fashion but that doesnt always mean that others do

Answer 6

Judges should not be making any moral decisions whatsoever. either personal or cultural.

A judge is charged with upholding the law, and the ethical standards as set forth by the state bar.

A judge who allows their personal beliefs (moral, religious or otherwise) to interfere with their impartiality is acting in direct contravention of their ethical and legal responsibility.

Answer 7

They should uphold the Constitution and the established laws, even if they conflict with their personal beliefs. Sadly, some are more influenced than they should be by party affiliations.

Answer 8

No. Judges are human beings just like the rest of us. They have the same failings as we do...

What a judge must do is follow the law in all matters while court is in session.

What happens during non-working hours is none of our business.

Answer 9

They should rule based on precedent, the Constitution, and applicable laws to the case. A judge's personal opinion or personal morals should not enter into his/her decision. It is called judicial activism when a judge uses his/her personal views to overrule precedent.