Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Judicial System

Rate this topic


jwoolcutt

Recommended Posts

I am in possession of ignorance pertaining to our (US) judicial system. Please help. I was thinking about it the other day and I became shocked at how little I actually knew about the way anything in politics works.

What is the proper role of the US judicial system? How much has it been politicized by the two-party system? It seems as if the judicial system were in the pocket of one of the major parties that it could pose a dramatic barrier towards personal freedom. By way of example the constitution is often quoted in argumentation by leftists using a completely different "interpretation" than I might have. If a significant portion of the judicial branch were comprimised to sway towards one particular interpretation of a law then it really would affect people's lives.

Are there any checks to insure the integrety of the judicial branch? I read that Rove fired some high-ranking judges. By what authority can a politician or head of another agency fire a judge?

How is the judicial branch funded? Who determines the budget?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure whether the judiciary has a "proper" role in the government: it's a procedural entity and it's usually the nature of procedural bodies that you can use a multitude of different means to achieve the same or nearly the same end. So, whether one particular means is proper or not is only a matter of whether it fulfils its stated purpose. The purpose of the judiciary is to act as the mediator/deliveror of the law for the citizens of the U.S., which it does do. Now, there may be more efficient and effective methods out there.

It is true that if the judicial system were in the pocket of any group that wanted people's rights systematically violated this would be a bad thing. It doesn't matter whether this group is an official "political party" or the mafia. However, most people are honest so corruption is a small problem, in general, and the system is constructed in such a way as to minimize the opportunities for corruptions (you can appeal a judge's ruling, for instance). If you're thinking of trying to construct a system based on the idea that most people are going to be dishonest given the opportunity, it's not going to work and you may as well give it up as a bad try. The main problem with the judiciary at this point is the existence of non-objective laws that are all-but-impossible to interpret and give the judges leeway to "legislate from the bench". This is a problem with the law (and the legislative branch) not with the judiciary.

Rove being able to fire judges is one of the checks put in place to limit the power of the judicial branch. The only judges that can't be fired by anyone are Supreme Court Justices, although I think they can be "impeached" (probably not the correct word, but same effect) for outright illegal behavior. There are also incredibly lengthy hearings and reviews before anyone is actually appointed to the Supreme Court, but no one can fire them because they don't like the way they interpret the law. This has actually been a largely beneficial thing for the country, providing some continuity between administrations.

The idea of Judicial Review (that the Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional) has also been a nice check on the legislative and executive branches, and it's not even in the Constitution. It was first exercised during the trial of Marbury vs. Madison (I believe) and has been the standard ever since.

As for funding, I think that works pretty much like all other government funding works: they get assigned a budget by the House and Senate appropriations committees. State judiciaries work pretty much the same way.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the proper role of the US judicial system?
The proper role of the judiciary in a rights-respecting system of government is to apply particular encoded moral principles in the evaluation of fact, to determine what the outcome should be in some dispute, for example whether one party should be required to perform or compensate, or should be punished for a misdeed. That is, the law says "If X then Y", and a method of determining the truth of X is needed, from which it follows whether Y must be the case. It is also necessary to determine whether the particular "If X then Y" is consistent with higher principles (constitutional requirements).

Rove did not fire any high-ranking judges. When you read claims like that, it would help if you provide a reference so that we can show you concretely why these idiots are evil liars. If you have evidence that he actually fired any judge, I will publically eat my hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any checks to insure the integrity of the judicial branch?... By what authority can a politician or head of another agency fire a judge?
The specific grounds and processes for evicting a judge may be nebulous for some judicial offices, but as far as I know they do exist for all judges, federal or state.

How is the judicial branch funded? Who determines the budget?
Just an educated guess, but I'd assume that virtually all judges are budgeted by legislative bodies, and the charge of paying out the money is almost always an executive duty. I'd be interesting to know definitively, but I doubt any American executive bodies have any real power to withhold judicial monies, particularly in order to affect judicial outcomes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President nominates individuals to be federal judges. (These judges are often referred to as "Article III" judges as this is the Constitutional source of their authority.) Once nominated, the Senate must approve the nomination.

Article III Judges cannot be removed ("fired") by the President, let alone a political advisor. (No hat eating!) Under Article III, they serve during "good behaviour" and can only be removed by the Senate. (Article I, section 3)

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article III Judges cannot be removed ("fired") by the President, let alone a political advisor. (No hat eating!) Under Article III, they serve during "good behaviour" and can only be removed by the Senate. (Article I, section 3)

Oops, heh heh. Sorry. I knew they could be fired by someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...