Judicial Independence

Judicial Independence in the United States

Extent to which judges are free from political pressure or control. Judicial independence is desirable because it allows judges to render decisions without fear of reprisal, insulating them from outside influences. Judicial independence may be fostered in a number of ways. One of the most important is to avoid judicial selection systems that feature popular participation. Judicial independence was a priority in structuring the federal courts. Not only are federal judges appointed rather than elected, but they also enjoy life tenure once confirmed. With life tenure, federal judges are never subject to popular control. Judicial independence is also furthered in ways not related to selection methods. Judicial immunity, for example, protects judges from civil suits arising out of actions taken in their official capacity as judges. It was felt that threat of civil suit might intimidate judges, and that the public interest would be best served by having judges who could function without fear of consequences stemming from their judicial conduct. The provision in Article III that protects the salaries of federal judges is similarly aimed at furthering judicial independence.

See Also

Judicial Accountability (Judicial Personnel issue) Judicial Immunity (Judicial Personnel issue) Life Tenure (Judicial Personnel issue).

Analysis and Relevance

One of the central issues in choosingjudges is whether

a selection process furthers the end of judicial independence or judicial accountability. Most Western political systems have chosen selection methods that advance judicial independence. This was also the pattern in the United States for the first several decades of our history. With Andrew Jackson came a heightened interest in popular control of public officials, including judges. Many of the states that had previously used either executive or legislative appointment methods of judicial selection switched to partisan elections. In addition, limited terms of office were established for most judgeships, giving the electorate frequent opportunity to exercise control. While some states have subsequently moved to nonpartisan elections or some form of the Missouri Plan, the priority in virtually every state has remained on judicial accountability to the electorate. Federal judges, on the other hand, remain insulated from direct popular control. The federal Judiciary (U.S.) is, of course, subject to the political dynamics associated with the principles of separation of power and checks and balances, but the federal judicial selection process is designed, in a general sense, to feature judicial independence.

Notes and References

  1. Definition of Judicial Independence from the American Law Dictionary, 1991, California

Judicial Independence in the United States

Judicial Independence

United States Constitution

According to the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, about its article titled JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCELong recognized as one of the hallmarks of American constitutionalism, judicial independence takes several different forms, each of which is essential to good judging, but none of which is absolute.One form-“party detachment”-concerns the relationship between the judge and the
(read more about Constitutional law entries here).

Some Constitutional Law Popular Entries


Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *