The Judicial Branch's Responsibility (Essay Sample)

The Judicial Branch's Responsibility

The judicial branch's responsibility is to provide interpretations of the laws. In contrast, the legislative and executive branches are responsible for enacting new laws and ensuring they are followed. To argue that judges decide cases based on their policy preferences rather than a faithful interpretation of the law is to suggest that they abandon the impartial judicial role and legislate from the bench. To describe judges as activists in this sense is to argue that they decide cases based on their policy preferences. It is claimed that judges use judicial restraint when they are reluctant to overturn legislation that does not appear to be in direct violation of the Constitution. The concept of judicial activism is not inherently harmful since the state's judiciary is tasked with upholding the rights and liberties of its citizens. Achieving this goal will necessitate taking the proper action in all situations involving the rights of individuals.
According to the Constitution and other laws, the institution must administer justice. To achieve the ideal rule of law in the United States of America, issues are expected to be resolved fairly and equitably to respect all parties' rights and liberties (Bolick & Clint p.1). The judiciary, as defined by the law, is the branch of government responsible for administering justice. This phrase refers to the judicial system and the judges, magistrates, adjudicators, and other support workers that work tirelessly to keep things going smoothly. A judicial system is responsible for enforcing the rules of the law, resolving disputes, and enforcing penalties on those who breach the law.
The phrase "legislating from the bench" is bandied about rather often, but its meaning is rarely broken down. The concept of legislating from the bench suggests that the judicial system comprises two distinct categories of judges: those who only interpret the law and those who have political agendas and establish new laws (Bolick & Clint p.1). This dichotomy, on the other hand, obscures the fact that hazy terminology and shifting political and social dynamics make it necessary for the law to be established through legal interpretation. It is necessary to apply interpretation when dealing with ambiguous language found in the Constitution. Some examples of these phrases include "due process of law," "equal protection under the law," and "cruel and unusual punishment." Because of this, the interpretations of these terms are required to shift whenever unanticipated events have a place, which makes the courts a route for interpretation that can significantly influence legislation. As a result, the expression "legislating from the bench" is, at best, deceptive, and an examination of its historically applicable context demonstrates the necessity of the expression.
Judiciary involvement refers to a decision made by the courts that are thought to be driven by personal or political interests rather than the law as it now exists in practice called judicial activism. Moderation on the part of the legal system This suggests that courts should exercise caution when invalidating legislative measures unless there is an apparent inconsistency between the measure at issue and the Constitution (Stiansen et al., p 779). Judicial activism occurs when a court renders a decision contrary to established precedents or directly contradicts a professed legislative or constitutional goal as opposed to the concept of judicial restraint. In legal matters, judicial activists argue that verdicts can be made in a way that is favorable to the plaintiff, even if this reading of the law is contrary to its stated intent. It is common for an activist court to rule not based on the law but the justices' personal beliefs. As a result, some judiciary members have a predisposition to voice views inconsistent with the rule of law.