0
What else can I help you with?
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.
Only people in Great Britain should write laws in parliament?
only people in great Britain should write laws in parliament
Activist judges believes that the courts should?
Activist judges believe that the courts should play a more active role in policy making and be willing to strike down federal laws, whereas judges favoring restraint believe that the courts should defer to the elected branches of government.
Why don't judges answer political questions?
Judges interpret the laws and legislators (or politicians) enact the laws. The separation of powers requires that the judiciary and the legislative branches remain separate, and accordingly judges should remain politically neutral.
Why should the supreme court not review the decisions of the National Assembly of Pakistan?
Parliament is a law making organ. They vote for new laws. Judiciary is a different organisation. Their power is different. They just safeguard the laws (by constitution). They are the judges. Supreme court is the only arbritation authority in some occasions. For example: mistakes by parliament or by the President (if not satisfied by rule, constitution). So sometime Supreme court takes on others.
Is it true or false that English colonists in America believe that Kings should make all the laws?
False. They believed that Parliament should make the laws, but when the King interfered, some of the colonists rebelled and started the United States.
Which arm of the government has the power to interpret and apply laws?
There are three arms of power: Legislative Power, Executive Power and Judicial Power. It is the Judicial Power (The Judges) that has the power to interpret and apply laws in Australia. Courts and judges are independent of parliament and government.
What is the idea that judges should give decisions to lawmakers called?
The idea that judges should defer to lawmakers when making decisions is known as "judicial restraint." This philosophy advocates that courts should respect the roles and decisions of legislative bodies, interpreting laws rather than creating new ones. Judicial restraint emphasizes the importance of the separation of powers and encourages judges to limit their own power by upholding legislative intent.
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).
What are the two kinds of laws you have in australia?
Statute law and common law are the two types of laws in Australia. Statute law refers to the legislation passed in parliament. Upon approval by parliament, statute law becomes common law. Common law emanates from the judiciary, and they are laws passed by juries and judges.
How do you think Supreme Court judges should decide cases?
Supreme Court judges should decide cases based on a thorough interpretation of the Constitution, relevant laws, and established legal precedents. They should prioritize impartiality and fairness, ensuring that their decisions uphold individual rights and the rule of law. Engaging in careful deliberation and considering the broader implications of their rulings on society is also essential. Ultimately, judges should strive to balance judicial restraint with the need for progressive interpretation in response to evolving societal values.
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.
