Talk:Judicial independence

Current Proposals and Controversy in the U.S.- is this OR?

The question of judicial independence is a current issue of significant debate within the U.S. political system, although arising under different labels and names.

There are current political campaigns to make judges more accountable for allegedly bad decisions, meaning those that alletedly do not follow laws passed by the legislature, procedural rules, or precedents of higher courts, or the failure of judges to avoid conflicts of interest and bias, or lack of judicial temperament by judges in how they treat litigants in their courtrooms, or criminal sentences seen by some as too lenient or too harsh.

Referenda have been placed on state ballots to make judges more accountable, such as the J.A.I.L. initiative in South Dakota, which was not approved but engendered and continues to engender significant debate and efforts to promote similar ballot initiatives in other States.

In response to these calls for change to judicial independence, opponents of such change argue for the central importance, in their view, of an independent Judiciary immune from political interference in the outcome of court cases.

The 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, in which a majority of the Supreme Court, including some appointees of the first President Bush, over-ruled challenges to the election of the second President Bush then pending in the Florida Supreme Court, whose members had all been appointed by Democratic governors, is seen by many as reinforcing the need for judicial independence, both with regard to the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. This case has focused increased attention on judicial outcomes as opposed to the traditional focus on judicial qualifications.

Both sides of this debate refer to the doctrine of separation of powers, yet interpret this concept in directly opposing ways. On one side of this debate, separation of powers means that no one branch may act unilaterally, but power is divided between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches. That is, "checks and balances" should also apply to the Judicial Branch.

On the other side of this debate, separation of powers means that the Judiciary is independent and untouchable within the Judiciary's sphere. In this view, separation of powers requires that the Judiciary alone holds all powers relative to the Judicial function and the Legislative and Executive Branches may not interfere in any aspect of the Judicial Branch.

For example, the Florida Supreme Court maintains that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys in Florida and set rules for the Florida courts. In other states, the power to regulate all professions -- including attorneys -- is held by the legislature although regulation of attorneys is delegated to the state Bar or state Supreme Court merely for convenience.

There are hybrid or compromise views as well. Current proposals by members of Congress such as Todd Akin and Trent Franks would require the immediate removal of judges for a failure to continue "during good behavior" as the Constitution provides, and would by statute define the meaning of "good behavior." This would result in the immediate removal of Federal judges for any misconduct without the need for impeachment.

I advocate removal of this entire section as Original Research OR. Discussion? Raggz (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in this specific case, a healthy dose of 'citation needed' tags would be a better short-term solution. Jtrainor (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Deletion in February, unless there is objection. Raggz (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Judicial Independence count as a Separation of Powers?

Since it divides the Judiciary from the other branches, it might as well be a form Separation of Powers which divides the Judicial function from the others. Am I right? (Slurpy121 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

No.. does not. In fact, when I edited the Judicial Independence page - with the truth - someone who is probably a lawyer deleted it. There are serious issues with the integrity of our judicial system - because of the perversion of the concept of "independence." What we have is a ROGUE judicial system, that has created an epidemic of corruption - and there is tons of academic research out there and scandals in the media - that supports this. Thomas Jefferson said that the destruction of the democracy would come through the judiciary- and that is exactly what has happened. I have been a civil rights advocate for eight years - and have seen peoples lives destroyed by a self-regulating judiciary that is now nothing more than a crime syndicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PA Court Watch (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Renaming

• "Judicial independence" (279,000)
• "Independent judiciary" (346,000)
• "Independence of the judiciary" ("307,000")

-- Neutrality^talk 22:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The results are duly noted, but if one were to refine the search further to a legal and political standpoint, "Independent judiciary" leads the way in hits from Google Scholar (19,100), Google Books (2,860), and Google News (1,103), in all of which the more cumbersome "Independence of the judiciary" lags behind in hits: 10,800, 2,200, and 219 respectively. "Judicial independence" strikes a middle ground, at 17,700, 2,632, and 339 respectively. One has to be aware that while eliminating 'wiki' results from a general search is useful, it is no fool-proof way of eliminating the many Wikipedia duplicators and domaineers on the web. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 11:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on Judicial Independence in US doesn't make sense

Second sentence here does not follow the first. It is an illustration of the concept of Judicial Independence, but has nothing to do with Presidential consultation of the ABA. Example, if it is to remain in the article, needs to be reformatted or re-positioned.

Section in question follows:

The President is free to appoint any person to the federal bench, yet typically he consults with the American Bar Association,whose Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rates each nominee "Well Qualified," "Qualified" or "Not Qualified." For instance, David Souter was appointed in the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 but in Bush v. Gore case in 2000 vote with minority against President George W. Bush's legal position. It was specially mentioned in the book, written in Russian and bearing Souter's name in the title.[23] Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Yury Danilov, reviewing the book in a Moscow English-language daily, made the following remark on Souter's position in Bush v. Gore case: "In a most critical and delicate situation, David Souter had maintained the independence of his position and in this respect had become a symbol of the independence of the judiciary."[24]

Judicial independence in Poland

Started a discussion at Talk:Judiciary of Poland#Judicial independence in Poland. Whizz40 (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The section fails WP:DUE. This is a general level article and this stuff is irrelevant. The section fails WP:NOTNEWS. This is just a latest spat, and we have no idea (WP:CRYSTALBALL) whether it will be of lasting notability. The section was also added by what looks like a sock puppet of an indef banned user, pursuing a WP:AGENDA.

Per WP:ONUS the burden is on those wishing to include, especially in the light of above. Volunteer Marek 16:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Judicial review

Judicial review is the idea fundamental to the US system of governmen that the actions of the executive and legislative branch's of government 102.122.31.93 (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)