Governing Institutions

Full Answer Section

  he appropriate role of the judiciary is a matter of debate. Some people believe that the judiciary should be a passive branch of government that simply interprets the law as it is written. Others believe that the judiciary should be a more active branch of government that is willing to strike down laws that it believes are unconstitutional. There are a number of arguments in favor of a more active judiciary. One argument is that the judiciary is the only branch of government that is not directly elected by the people. This gives the judiciary a certain degree of independence from the other branches of government, which can be helpful in ensuring that the law is applied fairly and impartially. Another argument in favor of a more active judiciary is that the judiciary is the only branch of government that is specifically tasked with interpreting the law. This means that the judiciary has a unique expertise in understanding the meaning of the law and in applying the law to individual cases. However, there are also a number of arguments against a more active judiciary. One argument is that judges are not elected by the people, and therefore they should not have the power to make laws. Another argument is that an active judiciary can lead to judicial overreach, which can undermine the authority of the other branches of government. The terms "activist" and "judicial restraint" are often used to describe different approaches to judicial decision-making. An activist court is a court that is willing to strike down laws that it believes are unconstitutional. A court that shows judicial restraint is a court that is more likely to defer to the decisions of the other branches of government. There is no single definition of what it means for a court to be activist. However, some of the characteristics of an activist court include:

• A willingness to strike down laws that it believes are unconstitutional.
• A willingness to overturn precedent.
• A willingness to interpret the law in a way that expands the rights of individuals.

A court that shows judicial restraint is more likely to defer to the decisions of the other branches of government. This means that a court that shows judicial restraint is less likely to strike down laws that it believes are unconstitutional, and it is more likely to uphold precedent. The debate over the appropriate role of the judiciary is a complex one. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide what they believe is the appropriate role for the judiciary in a democratic society. Here are some additional thoughts on the appropriate role of the judiciary:

• The judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. This means that judges should not be influenced by political considerations when making decisions.
• The judiciary should be impartial. This means that judges should not let their personal beliefs or biases influence their decisions.
• The judiciary should be fair. This means that judges should treat all parties to a case equally and should not favor one side over the other.

The judiciary plays an important role in a democratic society. It is responsible for ensuring that the law is applied fairly and impartially. The judiciary also plays a role in protecting the rights of individuals. By upholding the rule of law, the judiciary helps to ensure that the government does not abuse its power.

Sample Solution

  The judiciary is one of the three branches of government in a democratic society. Its role is to interpret the law and to apply the law to individual cases. The judiciary is also responsible for ensuring that the other branches of government do not violate the law.