Activist judges believes that the courts should?

What is the belief that judges should use their position to promote desirable social ends?

judicial activist

What is the average yearly salary of a judge?

You really should be more specific. Salary ranges for a judge vary from country to country, state to state, even county to county. In addition there are various types of judges from low level courts through the supreme courts and federal courts. A judge is typically well paid for their location but that range is very dependant on many factors. Local judges may range from $30,000-$90,000. Federal judges often range from $100,000 up to $200,000. Television show judges with their own show make even more.

Should it be illegal to file a lawsuit without evidence?

If that was illegal, judges and people who work at courts and who are lawyers wouldn't make as much money, so no it shouldn't be.

What does an animal rights activist do?

Some celebrity activists are Bob Barker, Betty White, Paul McCartney, Angelina Jolie.

How do you get justice in Pakistan.?

As we know, no nation can survive without justice; the same applies to Pakistan. To get justice anyone can plea case with lower or high courts. Lower courts are lead by session judges while high courts are lead by Chief Justices (High Court). These all courts are lead by Supreme Court of Pakistan.My Open Massage to Chief Justice of PakistanPlease feel the poor condition of civil courts/banking courts/company court and now Islamabad High Court. In present time each and every family of Pakistan is involve at least one civil case in such courts. No court is delivering justice as required by the peoples. Only dates are being given by the courts.Please announce the change in said system. I think that this is the whole problem in Pakistan. As there is no delivery of justice to the ordinary peoples.Please announce a change to bring the justice to the peoples and please commit the peoples to change the law and fix only 10 cases to every civil court and according to quantity of civil cases courts be enhanced and after decisions and reductions of cases courts may be reduced this purpose lawyers be appointed Honorary judges without pay.Lawyer will do this duty as GOOD PAKISTANI as RAZACAR. 54000 cases demands 5400 judges to meet the justice.Please note the rush in courts.I have felled / EXPERIENCED all this personally.Pakistan only be saved by doing justice in courts and justice in society.MOREThe judges be restricted to show there faces in courts and they should be behind the curtain/drape/pall.Lawyer and parties should be unknowing from the names of judges and there should be breakaway / isolation between the peoples and judges and lawyers.Peoples and lawyers should not be able to see and approached the judges.The corruption in courts is big drawback in society and also mane reason of drawback to make peace in the country.Your servantMuhammad Khalid

What is it called when someone believes courts should take an active role in using its powers to check the other institutions of government?

In the United States, the power of "Judicial Review" by the judicial branch (Supreme Court) of the Federal government may be used to override any acts passed by the legislative (Congress) and executive (Presidential) branches of the Federal government. A person who believes in a strong judicial branch of government would be referred to as a "Judicial Activist". Refer to the Google Book link, below, for further information.

Are there juries in appeals cases?

Juries are not used in the appellate courts, and the appellate courts are composed solely of judges ("jurists," as they are called, but not jurors). Juries are used in trial courts to decide disputed questions of fact. Disputed questions of fact should all be resolved in the trial court and therefore are ordinarily not the subject of appeals. Appeals are taken to challenge the correctness of a trial court's rulings on the questions of law that were before it, rather than any questions of fact; and the judges in the appellate courts are ruling on whether or not the trial court committed any errors in its rulings on the questions of law that were before it during the trial and in any pre-trial or post-trial motions.

When judges make laws they?

Judges do not make law, they set precedent. The Legislature forms and passes statutes. Once someone is taken to court in violation of a statute, the Judge interpret the law and sets precedent for how the law should be interpreted in the future by equal courts within that district.

Compare and contrast the functions of trial and appellate courts?

There are three major differences between trial-level courts and appellate-level courts: witnesses and exhibits, judges, and juries. Trial courts are the courts where cases start. In the trial court, both sides present evidence to show their version of what happened. Most of the evidence presented in the trial court comes from witnesses (people who answer questions relating to the case) and exhibits (items and documents connected to the case, such as pictures, clothes, weapons, papers, etc.). However, in the appellate courts, there are no witnesses, and no evidence is presented. In appellate courts, the lawyers simply argue legal and policy issues before the judge or a group of judges. In the trial courts, the lawyers present evidence and legal arguments to persuade the jury in a jury trial or the judge in a bench trial. The second difference between the two courts is the judges. In trial courts, there is one judge in the courtroom. That judge decides what evidence can and cannot be used and often decides the outcome of the case. In most jurisdictions, appeals are decided by more then one judge. The last major difference between the trial courts and the appellate courts is the role of the jury. A jury is a group of citizens who listen to the facts and make decisions about the case. A jury is sometimes used in trial courts to help decide the case. In a criminal trial, the jury decides whether a person is guilty or not guilty. A criminal trial involves the government (the state of Indiana, for example) bringing charges against someone who committed a crime, such as robbery, murder, or drunk driving. In a civil trial, the jury decides whether a person is liable (legally responsible for damages) or not liable (not responsible). Individuals or companies who cannot settle a dispute file a document called a complaint to start a civil trial. Divorce, car accidents, and traffic violations are some of the most common types of civil cases. There can be a jury in either a civil or criminal trial. However, there is no jury in the appellate courts. Appellate judges determine the outcome of all appeals. A big misunderstanding about the appellate courts is that they simply rehear the case over again, evidence and all. But the truth is that appellate courts do not rehear the facts of the case. Appellate courts focus on questions of law, NOT on questions of facts like the trial courts. The appellate judges want to know whether the law was applied accurately. The appellate court overrules a trial court decision only if a very important legal error was made in the trial court. In some cases, the appellate court judges might believe that the outcome of the trial court should have been different, but if no legal errors were made, they will not overrule the lower court. The appellate judges make their decisions based only on legal arguments of how the law should be applied and interpreted.

What is article lll section 1?

Of the United States Constitution? "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." That just means that America has one supreme court and lots of smaller courts that Congress can create when they think its necessary. Judges keep their jobs when they behave well and should be paid for their services.

Should Federal Judges only interpret existing laws or should they be able to create new laws?

No, federal judges should not be able to create new laws since that's the job of the legislature. Judges should only interpret existing laws instead of trying to write them.

Activist judges believes that the courts should?

Add your answer:

What is the belief that judges should use their position to promote desirable social ends?

How many judges are there for U.S. District Courts?