0
Judges aren't immune from law.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
In the United States, judges have qualified immunity, which protects them from civil liability when carrying out their official duties. This doctrine was established by the Supreme Court to ensure that judges can make decisions without fear of personal legal consequences, provided they do not violate clearly established legal rights.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
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.
What were the Songhai Empires laws based on?
The laws of the Songhai Empire were based on Islamic legal principles, following Sharia law. Islamic judges, known as qadis, were responsible for interpreting and enforcing these laws.
What is the synonym for impunity?
Some of them are exemption, freedom, liberty, latitude and immunity.
How do judges make law?
Judges do not make laws; they interpret and apply existing laws to individual cases. Their decisions set legal precedent, which guides future rulings. The role of judges is to ensure that laws are correctly interpreted and applied, not to create new laws.
What is posseive noun for judges?
The possessive form of the plural noun judges is judges'. Example: The judges' decisions are final.
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>
Why are so many attorneys unaware that judges can in fact be sued?
the constitution and the supreme court both speak to this. Any judge who violates a persons Rights in court, are stripped of their immunity, and can be sued individually and in their official capacity. If a judge acts outside of his jurisdiction, he also loses his immunity. Federal tort law states judges cannot invoke immunity for acts that violate a litigants civil rights. There are many case laws on this subject as well.
Who gave courts authority to create Judicial Immunity?
Quick Answer:The idea came down from the English Common Law.--Ideological Argument:The answer to your question is simply this: NO ONE! The only way judges can be given immunity is by a provision or amendment to our Constitution. The people did give limited immunity to members of Congress such as being immune from arrest when traveling to a meeting of Congress. But we never gave immunity to judges or courts. Nor did we ever give anyone authority to give judges immunity from our laws!Courts were and are looked upon as the weakest of the branches of govt, as they have no will, and havent the bully pulpit, and have no money! The judiciary is to follow the law and do as the law dictates, no more and no less. They are without authority to create law or immunities!They cant create law by claiming they are legal doctrines. To a limited degree judges of Europe were immune because the Sovereign made them immune, and the Sovereign claimed he was divinely appointed. Thus the Almighty made him king and only the Almighty could remove him etc. But in America it is the people who are sovereign, and we never gave immunity to judges!But judges like to flock together so they illegally created "judicial immunity" , but did so corruptly and illegally. We are a nation of laws, not judicial theory! And if anyone ever dealt with our judges in America they would learn they are the farthest from being devine of all people, as most are former lawyers. Road Kill has more respect!Recently judges were sued for deny a person the right to enforce a contract. The reason he sued was that the judges had conspired to impair the terms of the contract he was attempting to enforce.The federal court dismissed the case! But refused to justify the dismissal! As the impairment of a contract by states (and state courts, state legislature, or governors) is prohibited by our Constitution, the judges were without authority to do what they did.But they did more than impair a contract, they denied the person of his right to enforce a contract! That again is unconstitutional. Plus there are laws that protect contract rights, prohibit conspiring to deny rights, and then there are due process of law and equal protection of law issues when a person is denied of rights and contract rights.But this is how corrupt courts and judges protect each other. They refuse to justify the unjustifiable by giving no reason for their dismissal. If they did, it would add fuel to them being sued and impeached>So you see, Judicial Immunity doesn't exist. And that is because the people in this country expect others to protect their Constitution and not themselves. Where are the picks, guns, shovels, etc outside the courthouse . Where is our Congress in overseeing our courts?
When do judges get the opportunity to make new laws?
Judges don't make laws, governments legislatures do.
What is the principle that holds that ambassadors and other embassy workers are not subject to the laws of the host country.....Diplomatic Immunity?
Diplomatic Immunity: The principle that holds ambassadors and other embassy workers not to be subject to the laws of the host country is indeed diplomatic immunity.
Do federal judges make new laws to replace bad ones?
judges do not make laws.. they only interpret them and give their ruling accordingly
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.
Do judges follow the constitution?
Yes. Contrary to popular opinion, judges do not make laws.
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.
Do judges ever break laws yes?
yes
Arm of the government that interprets laws?
Judicial- the judges.
What kind of laws arose from judges' decision?
The common law
