Law

Within the common law system, one of the significant tasks of judges is to create legal precedent by ruling on a certain case. When judges make a ruling on a case, they often refer to previous precedents to help guide the outcome of the ruling itself. It is within the scope of their practice to interpret, synthesize, and connect the relationships between the precedent and the case presented before them.  They are also given the authority to interpret the constitution through their own philosophies. Primarily, there are two schools of constitutional interpretation within the judicial system. These are originalism versus living document. Originalists tend to believe that they should interpret the constitution as it was originally written by the founding fathers. Thus, their rulings are often more conservative than the other. However, those others who follow the idea of the constitution as a living document tend to be more innovative in their interpretation, for it is their belief that the constitution should be developed parallel to social trends. We should respect the interpretations of the judges as long as it is within narrow constraints not overly innovative yet not extremely conservative either.

As time passes and society progresses, the nature of a present day case may be inarguable from laws extending from previous cases. These instances thus become the proper time for a judge to develop a legal precedent and make law. However, it is my contention that judges should not excessively engage in Judicial Activism where they continue to overturn past precedents and make new laws, thereby disturbing the status quo. For example, one recent Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, set a precedent that will reshape the face of politics and campaigning in America.  The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision (reversing two previous precedents that dealt with campaign finance reform) that, in effect, enables corporate funding for candidates to go unchecked during elections.  The Justices argued that restrictions on funding were a direct violation of the First Amendment. It is my opinion that this gives huge leverage to corporations over candidates now even foreign corporations will now be able to have a vast role in influencing American politics. Moreover, it will significantly empower special interest groups and their lobbyists. An average American citizen will thus have a diluted effect considering the small contributions they make to their selected candidate. Evidently, when a court becomes an activist and continues making laws, it seems to disturb the current conditions in which the political and social affairs are relatively settled.

One of my major concerns is whether the domain of the judge is the proper venue for producing laws. We have a legislature from the people and for the people. Constituents have the right to participate in the creation of laws, create a petition, discuss it with their peers, and pressure their elected representative to pursue the laws passing. This makes the legislature a better and more integrated lawmaking body.

While lobbying a representative remains to be a usual and acceptable practice, it should not be practiced on judges. There are two different distinctions here the legislature creates laws to serve its constituents while judges make law to serve justice. Therefore, I believe judges should be appointed, and not elected. If a judge were elected, he would create an opportunity for special interests and people with power to contribute to his campaign. In effect, contributors will have leverage over the judges.  This would cloud the judgment of our judges and hinder their ability to serve justice. Aside from that, a judge is appointed by a president. The president normally appoints a judge that will further the justice system and sustain it, while many people might elect a judge for his sheer popularity or shining personality. The president always knows more than the people because he has better sources to explore and identify the quality and performance of the judge. Furthermore, if a judge was elected then he or she would have a greater propensity to rule on what is Politically smart rather than what is Judiciously correct. Judges would be inclined to rule on what would give them more popularity and votes. This will create an interest-driven judicial system that willwoulddoes serve sheer politics.