Perennial Policy Struggle: Judicial Independence vs. Accountability
Judicial review of governmental action as “the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority”. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 536 (1884).
"The legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship." Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 407 (1989).
"Like judicial independence, judicial accountability is not an end in itself. It too serves other ends: To promote the rule of law, institutional responsibility, and public confidence in the courts." Charles Gardner Geyh, The Endless Judicial Selection Debate and Why it Matters for Judicial Independence, 21 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1259, 1260 (2008). Geyh further explains that the "perennial policy struggle is to strike an optimal balance between judicial independence and accountability," a balance that would ensure enough judicial independence that judges decide cases "without fear or favor," but also ensures enough accountability that the judges do not "disregard the facts or law to the detriment of the rule of law and public confidence in the courts." Id.
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)