The judicial branch in the US, comprised of state and federal courts, is responsible for the interpretation of the laws of the land. They can set precedent, overturn laws enforcing inequality, and make decisions that uphold the status quo. An "impartial judiciary", one not swayed by the will of popular opinion or political influence, is the ideal. "But, in practice, judges do make rules; and thus courts act as political as well as legal institutions...And just like other political actors, judges have their own policy goals and are influenced by public opinion, election results, and their own worldviews when they issue rulings" (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper, 2011, p. 249).
Because judges are appointed at the federal level and not elected, they have been the source of contention over their role in a democracy. This is especially true in the case of the Supreme Court. The composition of the highest court in America is determined by the political leanings of the President in power when there is a vacancy. The contention over these nominations has grown over the last 30 years, as has the accusations of corruption. Clarence Thomas is currently under suspicion for conflicts of interest related to his private political activities and his refusal to recuse himself on cases where he has personally gained. That is just one example of how the judicial branch is clouded with suspicion of impropriety.
Ideally, the judicial branch would interpret the laws of America in relation to the Constitution without any partiality toward the impact of their decisions. This is rarely the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment