Why the judiciary is important in a democracy?

Answer 1

An independent judiciary is important to maintaining our democracy. One reason is so that impartial judges can check the legislature and president and prevent them from passing unconstitutional laws. This is democratic because an impartial judge is unbiased, and makes decisions based on what the law states not based on whether or not they believe it is right based on their ideologies. They also are not pressured politically to decide one way or the other. For example, if Congress wanted to pass a bill saying that only Christian people can worship in public in the United States, even though a judge may believe that this law should be implemented, they would rule this unconstitutional because it is in violation of Article 1.

Answer 2

The independence of the judicial arm of government is very important, and even moreso to a democracy, which has at its heart fundamental principles such as freedom, equality, the peaceful society of man, self-governance and a dissemination of power (for effective operation of vast Kingdoms/State and as a fail-safe against tyranny).

This independence forms a pillar of modern democratic societies, installed in various forms and synergies around the world, and noted extensively by Baron de Montesquieu in his work The Spirit of the Laws (1748). Termed the 'separation of powers', the independence of the three major branches of governance; the judicature, the parliament and the executive, is now very much seen as quite central to the democratic thesis.

The separation of the judiciary from the direct executive began long before Nugent published Baron de Montesquieu's controversial book, and had been heading in much the same direction. The momentum was with de Secondat. A very brief British example of this includes the gradual transition from the Sovereign personally administering disputes between individuals or between nobles, then the Courts of Chancery, administered by the Peers, then the Courts of Equity which fused with the Courts of the Common Law and are administered in some cases by Peers but in many cases by trained professionals with only little blood relationship to the Sovereign, if at all. A further and linked brief example is the gradual shift over time of power, once exclusively held and exercised by the Sovereign, now largely delegated to citizens as the responsibilities and the scope of the Empire increased, in order to better facilitate good governance and also to protect against tyrannical rule.

The separation of the judicial arm of government includes inter alia the idea that the tenure of a magistrate, judge, justice or Law Lord ought to be secure. This protection is granted in various letters of State; including those such as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), the United States Constitution, the conventions and practices of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc as well as of course the Great Charter - the terms of which are no doubt still today protected by the decedents of those Barons elected at Runnymede and our Sovereign. This protection demands the political independence of those adorning silk at the bench. It approaches the summary that one cannot be removed from the bench as a member of the judiciary without some exceptional reason and certainly very good cause. This in turn encourages the development of law in an appropriately predictable way and encourages also the adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis; which thereby promotes the appearance of justice, so pivotal to the success of a self-regulating society. Faith in the system, one might say, is fundamental to the decision of a subject of HM or otherwise a citizen of the State to either obey society's instructions to them or rather refusing to conform to the same. If the judiciary is seen as being an organ of the Kingdom which is secure, predictable, reactive, generally right, and generally quite fair, then people will be more content to look kindly upon the function and operation of the laws themselves. In that way it is an element of this organisation of state which promotes the peaceful society of man, described by Hobbes as in opposition to the 'state of nature'.

The separation of the judiciary can be considered furthermore of course from the opposing point-of-view. That is, from the perspective of the legislature. An independent judiciary is not only expected to be free from public or political pressure and remain secure in that focus upon the law; it is also expected to discharge its duties in accordance with reciprocal respect for its fellow branches of government, the parliament and the executive. The Courts may construct statute passed by the parliament and which is enacted by the authority of the executive and their senior delegates (i.e. the US President and his administration in the USA, HM The Queen in council in the United Kingdom, the Governors-General in council in Australia, Canada and New Zealand etc), however they may not legislate in their own right as their responsibilities extend only to interpreting and applying the law rather than drafting it themselves if they happen to disagree apart from the law that a particular Act is unsuitable as such. In this way, the parliament's rights and the rights of the people to indirectly participate in the governance of the Kingdom in which they live or 'their' State (in the case of Social Contract States such as France or the USA) are protected.

These are among some of the many concerns which may well enter one's mind upon consideration of the reasons for which the independence of the judiciary is important. Others include the salary of judges and a discussion of corruption, age limits, appointment and prejudice, stacking the courts with political friends, the various methods of constitutional interpretation, and stare decisis and relevance and impact of our fast-paced modern age etc.

Of course there are few occasions where the judiciary is truly independent. The appointment of judges generally is made by a delegate of the Head of State who is a member of the executive government by definition, thereby breaching the strictest construction of the doctrine. Countries such as Australia delegate this role twice -> from the Queen to the Governor-General and from the Governor General to the leader of the House of Representatives (a role which has been termed the Prime Minister). In either case however, the delegate remains the main driver of government on a day-to-day basis and may therefore harbour some conflict of interest. Furthermore, parliaments can be quite prescriptive or instead allow a rather generous measure of discretion to the Courts in their drafting of Acts, which might be seen as over-reaching their station as legislators. Also, some members of the bench might be members of the house of wiser heads in some countries, which may see them vote on legislation which they then seek to interpret. However, these Kingdoms and states, nevertheless have evolved over time to distribute power in their own unique way in order to bring about, in their own way, the ideals of freedom, justice and equality for which democracy means so much to so many of us.

Of our governments, our justices, our Queen, and other Heads of State and their delegates - "May their wisdom guide us until the stars rain down from the heavens", to paraphrase from CS Lewis' Narnia.

This is a very brief summary of some issues which one might consider relevant when addressing such a question as that posed here and the views expressed herein are not necessarily my own. Please consider reputable sources when discussing such a question in an academic context.

Kindest Regards all,

P. W. L. H.

28th July 2009

Answer 3

because without judiciary

1. there would not be lie a supreme court in the country.

2. even if there was a supreme court if it would had no power to judge actions of the government .

Answer 4

In any democratic government, the judiciary plays a vital role. Generally speaking, a "top Court" such as the Supreme Court in the USA, insures that laws coincide with a nation's constitution or other case law situations to make sure that laws are not biased or infringe upon the rights of the nation's citizens.

Answer 5

So that impartial judges can check the legislature and president and prevent them from passing unconstitutional laws.