0
Judges are responsible ONLY for interpreting and then administrating the law. Police are responsible for upholding the law. The Legislative Branch of Government makes law and the Supreme Court makes sure that the laws that have been written are constitutional.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How has the court exceeded its role as interpreter of the law and extended its authority into legislation?
Judges are not ignoring laws and introducing their own biases. This process inadvertently allows judges to exceed their authority in the court of law.
Should judges have the authority to overrule statutory law?
They can overrule statutory law if they find it not in keeping with the Constitution or case law.
Who determines the intent of the law?
Judges rule on the intent of the law, when that intent is not apparent to the people concerned. And the final authority is the Supreme Court. The law means what they say it means.
Who were the people with authority to make and enforce laws and manage disputes about laws?
The people with authority to make and enforce laws are typically legislators and executive officials, such as members of a parliament or congress and the president or prime minister. To manage disputes about laws, judicial officials, such as judges and courts, have the authority to interpret and apply the law to resolve legal conflicts.
What is judicial immunity?
To understand this concept, one must go back to the founding of this nation. We threw off a king and English rule as we were being taxed and not being represented in govt, among other things. We did not accept sovereign or parliament authority in which we had no part. Because of this, the founders to form a representative govt with its authority and limitations set by the people. Remember the people had to approve the Constitution that set that authority and limits. The states and colonists had just fought a war to throw governmental authority and they werent about to give this govt any sovereignty over the will of the people. We gave the President the authority to pardon etc. We gave Congress the power to make law etc. We gave judges the authority to carry out our laws and the Constitutuon as it was written. However, we never gave courts, public officials, judges, congressmen, and all their staffs immunity from our laws and Constitution. Immunity is nowhere to be found in our Constitution as the people did not give it, and in fact did not want anyone to be above t he laws and principals under which it was formed. As the people are the supreme authority in a democracy or republic. Thus as stated in the "Federalist" it is the people that are sovereign not govt. Those people are the only ones that can grant immunity, the power to pardon, or anything else. AND THE PEOPLE NEVER GAVE JUDGES OR ANYONE ELSE IMMUNITY FROM OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. Nor did we give Congress or anyone else the authority to grant immunity to anyone! We didnt give it to prosecutors, courts, judges, congress, etc. And we surely werent bound by any English or foreign laws. Thus immunity claimed by courts and judges has no basis in our country and in fact, doesnt exist. Therefore, Judicial Immunity is a court made immunity and the court has never had authority to make or create it. Judicial Immunity is a sham that has no basis in our law or country. It simply doesnt exist! The people alone can grant immunity not the govt, courts, judges or any instrument of govt> To understand this concept, one must go back to the founding of this nation. We threw off a king and English rule as we were being taxed and not being represented in govt, among other things. We did not accept sovereign or parliament authority in which we had no part. Because of this, the founders to form a representative govt with its authority and limitations set by the people. Remember the people had to approve the Constitution that set that authority and limits. The states and colonists had just fought a war to throw governmental authority and they werent about to give this govt any sovereignty over the will of the people. We gave the President the authority to pardon etc. We gave Congress the power to make law etc. We gave judges the authority to carry out our laws and the Constitutuon as it was written. However, we never gave courts, public officials, judges, congressmen, and all their staffs immunity from our laws and Constitution. Immunity is nowhere to be found in our Constitution as the people did not give it, and in fact did not want anyone to be above t he laws and principals under which it was formed. As the people are the supreme authority in a democracy or republic. Thus as stated in the "Federalist" it is the people that are sovereign not govt. Those people are the only ones that can grant immunity, the power to pardon, or anything else. AND THE PEOPLE NEVER GAVE JUDGES OR ANYONE ELSE IMMUNITY FROM OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. Nor did we give Congress or anyone else the authority to grant immunity to anyone! We didnt give it to prosecutors, courts, judges, congress, etc. And we surely werent bound by any English or foreign laws. Thus immunity claimed by courts and judges has no basis in our country and in fact, doesnt exist. Therefore, Judicial Immunity is a court made immunity and the court has never had authority to make or create it. Judicial Immunity is a sham that has no basis in our law or country. It simply doesnt exist! The people alone can grant immunity not the govt, courts, judges or any instrument of govt> To understand this concept, one must go back to the founding of this nation. We threw off a king and English rule as we were being taxed and not being represented in govt, among other things. We did not accept sovereign or parliament authority in which we had no part. Because of this, the founders to form a representative govt with its authority and limitations set by the people. Remember the people had to approve the Constitution that set that authority and limits. The states and colonists had just fought a war to throw governmental authority and they werent about to give this govt any sovereignty over the will of the people. We gave the President the authority to pardon etc. We gave Congress the power to make law etc. We gave judges the authority to carry out our laws and the Constitutuon as it was written. However, we never gave courts, public officials, judges, congressmen, and all their staffs immunity from our laws and Constitution. Immunity is nowhere to be found in our Constitution as the people did not give it, and in fact did not want anyone to be above t he laws and principals under which it was formed. As the people are the supreme authority in a democracy or republic. Thus as stated in the "Federalist" it is the people that are sovereign not govt. Those people are the only ones that can grant immunity, the power to pardon, or anything else. AND THE PEOPLE NEVER GAVE JUDGES OR ANYONE ELSE IMMUNITY FROM OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION. Nor did we give Congress or anyone else the authority to grant immunity to anyone! We didnt give it to prosecutors, courts, judges, congress, etc. And we surely werent bound by any English or foreign laws. Thus immunity claimed by courts and judges has no basis in our country and in fact, doesnt exist. Therefore, Judicial Immunity is a court made immunity and the court has never had authority to make or create it. Judicial Immunity is a sham that has no basis in our law or country. It simply doesnt exist! The people alone can grant immunity not the govt, courts, judges or any instrument of govt>
Do judges make policy?
No. They make decisions and some decisions are used to change law.
Who has the authority whether a law is acceptable or not?
The legislature decides whether a bill is acceptable to become a law when they decide whether or not to make it. In the process of becoming a law, the president or governor of the state has the option to veto a bill. Once it is law, judges can refuse to enforce it, and if it is unconstitutional the State or US Supreme Court can nullify it.
Do jugdes make law?
laws are created by the government judges enforce law and have the jusy and lawyers convine them on how
What is the meaning of the notion that judges should not make the law but uphold it?
Judges are meant to interpret what they think the law(s) mean, and follow the means of law in court form their interpretation but they aren't meant to make laws to fit their ruling or make laws at all( that's legislative).
How do judges make their decisions?
Judges make decision after hearing both the sides of the evidence, the document produced and the law of the land being enforced in that particular state.
In the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter what does legislatures make law whoe sales judges retail mean?
This quote emphasizes the distinction between the roles of legislatures and judges in the legal system. Legislatures create general laws that apply broadly to society, while judges interpret and apply those laws to specific cases, like a retail store selling goods to individuals. It underscores the idea that judges should not create new laws, but rather interpret and apply existing laws.
Should judges allowed to make case law without dispute occurring?
It's not possible to make case law without a case in dispute.
