It wasn't until my jurisprudence class this year that I realized that the criticism of 'activist judges' is not actually as accurate as the term may suggest. At the Supreme Court level, judges tend to be more politicians and fewer jurists, as their decision creates a binding precedent which the lower courts are bound to follow. If the legislature deems the decision wrong, they have the ability to change the law, but the legislature process and multiple interests may make that nearly impossible, as we know.
At the lower level courts, judges, I'll argue, are actually more representative than legislators, as they see regular people every single day. Decisions made in courts directly affect the lives of the individuals and do not require the implementation of the bureaucracy. A judge in a lower court is bound under the law and the arguments set forth by the two sides.
I've been reading a text on piracy from the US Naval War College and there is a great summary on how our founding fathers left a lot of leverage and digression to the lower courts and knew that the supreme court was limited by the executive's willingness or unwillingness to implement a decision - as FDR illustrated, a decision out-with the agreement of the president may lead to packing the court by diluting the majority which ruled against the White House and Congress.
The counter argument is that legislators are more democratically accountable as they are elected by the people they represent, whereas judges are removed from the electoral process. Though in the many American states the Missouri Plan for selecting judges is used, whereby a judge is nominated by a judicial commission, selected by the state’s governor and confirmed by the state senate, then held up for a retention election every few years to ask the people if the judge is performing the duties charged under the constitution and laws of the state.
Prima facie, it is difficult to counter the argument that perhaps judges could be ‘closer’ to the people than legislators. Legislators are elected by their constituents for a prescribed term. Whereas judges are unelected, appointed for life tenure and they do not respond to the people in any direct way. The challenge to a representative democracy is that unelected individuals can overturn the decisions of an elected body, and therefore challenge the will of the people.
Legislators will often not contemplate the constitutionality of a proposed bill, but discuss the political reasoning or popular logic in the arguments debated in the committee rooms and on the floor of the assembly. At the turn of the 21st Century, many members of the US Congress voted for campaign finance reform even though it was thought to violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court was almost set up for political failure as the decision was to (a) uphold the will of Congress and thereby the people or (b) uphold the validity of the US Constitution and the social contract which congress and the people are bound. The Court held the latter and was criticised for crafting ‘bench made law’ and also for ‘judicial activism’ and undermining the people’s elected representatives.
The British Parliament is supreme and therefore can do ‘whatever the hell it wants, whenever it wants’. The British Supreme Court (formerly the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or simply, the House of Lords), cannot strike down an Act of Parliament for being unconstitutional, as the supremacy of parliament means the legislature and therefore the will of the people is absolute and cannot be undermined by the constitution and the supreme court, both of which are granted authority from parliament. The concept of judicial review is different in the America, as the US Constitution is regarded as ‘higher law’ and all other law is subordinate. Acts of Congress, case law, and regulations would all be subordinate to the US Constitution and therefore classified as ‘normal law’ or ‘ordinary law’. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A constitution usually seeks to define the relationship the institutions of government, the relationship between the individual and the state, and provide limits on the power of the state, along with setting forth the goals and principles of the state, usually found within the preamble.
Judicial review by its nature undermines popular will, as all or part of a statute, passed by the legislature and given the force of law by the executive, can be declared ultra vires by a court, and struck down as unconstitutional. However, popular will in legislative terms is the support of the majority. This means that a minority in civil society may be largely unrepresented.
In Brown v Board of Education of Topeka (1954) 347 US 483, the US Supreme Court overturned their earlier decision of Plessy v Fergusson (1896) 163 US 537, which had upheld the post-Reconstruction (1877) doctrine of ‘separate, but equal’ enshrined in ‘Jim Crow’ laws, such as rules segregating public schools (Cumming v Richmond County Board of Education (1899) 175 US 528) in the American South as being within the ambit of the Constitution. The Court quickly followed the Brown precedent by holding segregation based on race within public spaces to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Many US States tried to argue the 14th Amendment only applied to Federal and not individual state citizenship (the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) 83 US 36). As Brown illustrates, nothing happened for the next fourteen years in regards to segregation, mainly due to a violent backlash from Southern states who claimed the Court was circumventing the democratic authority of the legislature. It was the legislatively crafted Civil Rights Act 1964 which finally brought an end to racial discrimination.
The function of the democratic accountability in the courts is to interpret the constitution in respect of popular opinion of the people. They filter public opinion through their decisions to interpret the constitution in consistency with public opinion. Judges interact with the public on such a regular basis that the knowledge of popular opinion and arguments presented is known and able to be effectuated through the decisions and judgements of the court. This school of thought is embodied by the American Realist movement, which began with US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the early 20th Century.
No comments:
Post a Comment