Stare Decisis and the Principle of Precedent - Coursework Example

Stare Decisis and the Principle of Precedent al Affiliation The provisions of the Constitution of the United s that create the judiciary are much different from the provisions concerning the legislative and executive branches. Life tenure, appointments, limited resources and power are major ways that distinguish the judiciary from the other branches. Do these differences insulate the judiciary from political forces? Though the Constitution of the United States has not provision that explicitly declares the powers of the three Federal government branches as separate, the original draft by James Madison contained an amendment proposal that was later rejected (Harris & Tichenor, 2010). Nonetheless, the Constitution used articles to separate the three branches of government. In the first article, the Legislative powers are vested in the Congress, while the second article allocates the President all the executive powers. The third article provides the Supreme Court and other inferior courts with judicial power. However, the judicial power of the United States is not always free from encroachment by the executive and the legislative. This is because the executive and the legislative often seek to counteract each other’s ambition, thus converting the separation of power to a war in search of freedom maximization. According to Neubauer & Meinhold (2013), the ambitions of the legislature and the executive as cultivated by federalism require the judiciary to draw the line between the state and national governments. However, these decisions normally provoke profound controversy since either party feels that the courts are a crucial part of their political agenda and manipulate them to suit their interests. The executive branch, constituting the presidential candidate normally denounces court decisions, dislikes them, and pledges to appoint judges who will reshape the judiciary. However, upon their election into office, the legislatives then use the courts through lawsuits in search of policy changes while seeking to affect future court decisions through nominees to the bench. For instance, it is the president who greatly controls who becomes a judge. Gur-Arie (2013) highlights that though judicial independence was originally intended in order to have courts and judges who settle disputes impartially regardless of potential, proffers, and real favors. In addition, the judges are expected to uphold democratic accountability. However, the United States provisions promote the judiciary’s democratic control on one hand while promoting judicial independence on the other. This is evident in the present procedures for judicial budgeting that leaves the courts and judges under the oversight and slight control from the executive and the legislature. One best instance is that of executive branch influencing judicial funding levels through its propositions to Congress on fiscal policy. Furthermore, the Congress determines the extent of funding for the judicial branch. Conversely, the Legislators utilize their power on funding to reveal the approval or disapproval of how the judges manage the courts, and though rare, the legislators use their positions to reveal their approval or disapproval of decisions by the judiciary. In addition, Congress utilizes other control means to regulate the effects of judicial decision making and the threats of other decisions in the future. In this case, the fact that it is the president who appoints federal judges with the consent and advice of the Senate leaves the judiciary under the influence of political forces as the legislature and the executive seek to achieve their ambitions. 2. Judicial decision-making in the American system relies heavily on the practice of stare decisis and precedent. Please explain, listing the advantages and disadvantages. What factors can lead to a court overturning itself? Remember to discuss the notion of judicial activists and judicial restraint. Basically, the word ‘stare decisis’ is Latin and is translated to mean standing by decisions already made. Stare decisis is made possible by the principle that the courts follow precedent decisions, thus ensuring that the courts stick to or abide to previous cases whose decisions have been achieved (Schubert, 1964). The principle requiring adherence to the previous decisions by court cases does not support any court in its efforts to depart from such decisions. It is thus crucial that any cases that courts believe were hastily made or that their decisions contradicted the principle must be overruled. In order to qualify to be precedent, stare decisis involves a decision by a higher court acting as a binding authority of another lower court within identical jurisdiction. In this case, the decision by a higher court offers varying persuasive authority levels depending on the nature of the other jurisdiction, the deciding court’s level, and the reputation of the judges on some instances. However, it is crucial to identify that the doctrine of precedent does not mean that the decisions must be decided using the same materials and facts since no two cases are ever expected to have recurrent facts, though the legitimate material facts may differ. Numerous researchers hold contradictory stances with some declaring that stare decisis is positive while others bring it out as negative. However, judicial activists believe that the doctrine is justifiable through arguments that focus on desirability of certainty and stability in the law and also the notions of fairness and justice (Stephens & Scheb, 2008). In addition, stare decisis prevents application of injustice such as where two similar cases involve one receiving better treatment than the other without the favoured party presenting relevant dissimilarity judicial restraint of stare decisis on the other hand suggests that inconsistent or infringement of adherence to precedent should be discouraged through rules rather than the exception of litigants as a way of winning back their faith through equal justice administration in the courts. Furthermore, any cases made without reference to the laid down principles from previous identical cases could cause entirely uncertain law that no citizen would be aware of their liabilities or rights till they know the judges to preside their cases and the judge’s view regarding the matter and with no reference to any past decisions (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2013). Critics also believe that stare decisis and precedent at times utilize stale old laws that cause unfair and unjust decisions by the courts. Such decisions may cause the entire edifice to tumble down and in search of justice, the courts may overrule its own decision. Such overruling come as a result of understanding that no stare decisis is a one-size-fit-all application. More often, judicial activism causes judges to substitute their political perceptions for the applicable law, unlike the political restraints who are expected to refrain from judgments unless their decision is crucial in concrete decision making. Consequently, judicial activists cause judges to decline to apply the law based on the original constitutional meaning and proceed to use personal preference. This then contradicts the original meaning by the founding fathers that the judiciary is meant to interpret the constitution and other lesser laws unlike creating new ones. This way, it would be easier to protect the integrity of the Constitution that is not achievable through judicial activism. 3. Why is Marbury v. Madison such a significant Case? Trace the evolution of judicial decision making from Marbury to U.S v. Nixon; could there have been a decision like Nixon without the decision of Marbury? Do you believe the Court overstepped its constitutional role? United States history to apply the judicial review principle. It is through these cases that the American Supreme Case became an independent government branch just as were the executive and the Congress. Despite the complications of Marbury case, the organization of the election in 1800’s democratic-republic party won against Federalist party, and the stopping of the nominated federalist judges to new positions (Nelson, 2000). Through the resulting Marbury v. Madison case, the Supreme Court managed to declare a request as unconstitutional through the Judicial review concept. Consequently, each branch of the government was expected to be the check and balance of each other and this set the precedent for other similar and decisions in the coming days (Mountjoy, 2007). Though simple the Marbury v. Madison Case made it clear that government organs are only bound by the constitution, which is the law due to its being unknown and enforceable by the courts. Furthermore, the interpretation of the law only appertained to the court and nothing else. This way, the Marbury decision reinforced constitutional government as it asserted judicial review’s definition of the Court’s power, thus depicting reliance to the written constitution. Moreover, the Marbury case advanced the role of the Supreme Court and the Constitution in America. Given its intense and irresistible contribution to the Americal Constitution, the Marbury v. Madison decision became a crucial precedent principle that granted the courts the power and cultivated willingness to exercise that power. According to Randolph (2004), the power of the Supreme Court today makes it to hold a stronger and more reinforced role in the Government, thus making it a crucial part of the government. While building upon the decision of Marbury v. Madison, the United States v. Nixon case made is clear that each one including the president are under the law as the law is not meant to protect evidence that could be crucial for criminal trial. It is for this reason that President Richard Nixon refused to offer evidence during trial with regards to stolen tapes in the Watergate Hotel (Gerhardt, 2008). Through the courts’ ruling, the executive functions of the president were overruled and nullified for use as an excuse to withhold pertinent evidence in trial. The United States v. Nixon Case clarified that not even the president’s power was sufficient to protect them from trial since the president is not under the law. More so, the president like other citizens was subject to the demands of due process of the law for equal and fair application of justice. This aligned with the fact that the doctrine of power separation, nor other doctrines generalized the need for the confidentiality of sophisticated communications to uphold unqualified, absolute, presidential privilege. I believe that the Supreme Court did not overstep its mandate by requiring that the president presents evidence in court. On the contrary, the Supreme court made it understood that the president understood broad immunity against civil suits regarding stands arising from their formal conduct (Stephens & Scheb, 2008). However, the court later held that presidential immunity did not include suits regarding his private behavior. In addition, pardoning Richard Nixon reveals a negative result of the principle of precedent in that the |Congress lacks the authority to undo the legislation-oriented pardon. Consequently, the federal courts have to accept the pardon and prosecute no president for misconduct (Harris & Tichenor, 2010). References Gerhardt, M. (2008). The power of precedent. New York: University Press. Gur-Arie, M. (2013). Judicial Independence in the United States: Current Issues and Relevant Background Information. United States: Federal Judicial Commission. Harris, R., & Tichenor, D. (2010). A history of the u.s. Political System : Ideas, Interests, And Institutions. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. Mountjoy, S. (2007). Marbury v. Madison : Establishing Supreme Court Power. New York: Chelsea House. Nelson, W. (2000). Marbury v. Madison : the origins and legacy of judicial review. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kenturky. Neubauer, D., & Meinhold, S. (2013). Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States, Sixth Edition. Wadsworth : Cengage Learning. Randolph, R. (2004). Marbury v. Madison : The New Supreme Court Gets More Power. New York: Rosen Publication Group. Schubert, G. A. (1964). Judicial Behavior: A Reader In Theory And Research. New York: Rand McNally. Stephens, O., & Scheb, J. (2008). American Constitutional Law Volume I : Sources Of Power And Restraint. Belmont, C. A: Thomson/Wadsworth. Read More