Talk:Judicial independence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Done. Deletion in February, unless there is objection. Raggz (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Proposals and Controversy in the U.S.- is this OR?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is Judicial Independence count as a Separation of Powers? 

message: *"Judicial independence" (279,000)
*"Independent judiciary" (346,000)
*"Independence of the judiciary" ("307,000")
-- Neutralitytalk 22:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Renaming

message: 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)
thread_title:  Judicial review