Judiciary in a democracy

wrickbench in a body politic What is the role of the bench in a majority rule?This mesh is discharge to examine the way judiciary works and operates in a state. Judiciary has definitely a truly significant role in a democracy as it shapes and interprets the practice of laws. Key roles and features of the judiciary will be discussed in this work. There will be whatsoever theories looked over at and upright about(predicate) tangible life examples as well.First of all, the meaning of the term judiciary needs to be established. Judiciary is the branch of government that is empowered to solve jural disputes and adjudicate on the meaning of the law (Heywood, 2007452). Democracy on its hand has the roots in Ancient Greece as even the account book itself has Greek parts e.g. demos for the slew and kratos for power. The formulate democracy has a visual sense of meanings nowadays and may not pack any meaning to some people at the same time (Heywood, 2007). In this essay the word democracy is going to be used in the context of a system of government that serves the interests of the people regardless of their participation in policy-making life (Heywood, 200772).As it was discussed in class the role of the judiciary is as follows* Protect the constitution* Look after government and parliament* enlarge the constitution and lawsThe key feature of judiciary in a democracy is its complete in regardence from government. For adjudicate cosmos nonpolitical is essential as well. They must be neutral in order to be legal (Heywood, 2007). Neutrality is the absence of any form of partisanship or payload (Heywood, 2007329). Often not only the judicial independence in a democracy is the case, but the extraneous pressure can sometimes plight place. Heywood argues that in this case it is not so much how decide be recruited, but who is recruited (Heywood, 2007). Judges may sometimes be the subject to internal preconceived idea and external bias. Internal bia s occurs when adjudicate may require personal preferences and cant be neutral in their decisions. External bias may occur when someone else may put pressure on the judge or put at gamble his/her employment, it is said that the external bias is obtainled by the principle of judicial independence. It gives a suggestion that judges cant be dismissed and that the amount of criticism towards judges work is constrained. In reality judges tend to be dependent on certain circumstances as political bodies often have control over certain key issues e.g. judge recruitment (Heywood, 2007). As it is seen from Heywood, judges are not always neutral and therefore in a real democracy can influence the final decision in both ways.Kathleen Sullivan, the past Dean of the Stanford Law School, agrees to the statement of judiciary being the protector of constitution It seems obvious that the judicatory system especiallyjudicial review of the acts of the legislative and executive branches of govern ment is, in one way,a bulwark of our constitutional democracy. The court protectscertain minority rights from being trampled by the majority, protects the basic liberty and participatory rights of all, and checks the excesses of the some other branches of government.Thats all well and good and crucial for democratic self regime (http//theblog.philosophytalk.org/2007/02/democracy_and_t.html). Kathleen adds another point about judiciarys role in a democracy that we did not look at during the class judiciary protects minorities and makes them less defenseless to the majorities choices.Judges expounding the law and constitution have a real important role in a democracy. Many things and even lives depend on the way a judge interprets the law at that moment. Heywood states that either judge uses law in his/her own way, interprets and builds up the argument in court judges impose meaning on law through and through a process of construction that forces them to choose amongst a number of potential meanings or interpretations. In this sense, all law is judge-made law (Heywood, 2007 330).In real life judiciary can be very contradictory. It can be observed from polar angle and be seen in a opposite ways by different parties. For example the X case in Ireland caused a lot of confrontation. The case was about a 14 category aged(prenominal) girl who was raped and got pregnant and wanted to go to England to have an abortion. However, she was refused to go by the High court. Later the case was solved by the appeal from the Supreme Court which stated that if there was a risk to mothers life as the result of pregnancy as there was a suicide possibility. As the result there were three amendments proposed to the constitution of Ireland. unity of them argued to remove suicide threat from the grounds for the legitimate abortion and was then rejected. Other two were ratified and these are thirteenth and fourteenth amendments (http//www.ifpa.ie/eng/Hot-Topics/ spontaneous abortion/Abortion-in-Ireland-Legal-Timeline). This case shows how different judges can build their arguments and interpret the law in different ways and, for sure, influence the final decision.Some people have mixed feelings about the way how judges are choose in a democracy. First of all they are elected just like politicians, so it makes judges political what interferes with judges being strictly independent and nonpolitical actors (Heywood, 2007328). It is thought that appointing judges is better than electing them as they are maybe more independent than the elected ones (http//theblog.philosophytalk.org/2007/02/democracy_and_t.html). Another case is the demographical deputation of the judges in democratic countries. As it was discussed in the class about 80% of all the judges in Ireland attended UCD. Most of the judges in Britain are white young manfuls with private education (http//www.guardian.co.uk/ government/2008/jan/28/uk.immigrationpolicy1). There was an attempt to c hange this pattern and encourage women and members of the minority groups to become judges to have a more diverse judiciary.The plunk of the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) in 2006 was meant to herald an end to the old tap on the shoulder method of recruitment and secret soundings among alert judges, which produced a senior judiciary that was almost exclusively white and male (http//www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/28/uk.immigrationpolicy1).Unfortunately, this new method of recruitment did not work as well But a Guardian review of plectrum shows that those appointed since last September are remarkably similar to those selected infra the old process (http//www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/28/uk.immigrationpolicy1).Diversifying of the judiciary is not easy, so it will take some time, but it will sure enough make believe to the point.In the conclusion I would like to say that judiciary certainly works in a democracy. The question is if it works fairly, correctly and completely neutrally like it must work. Judiciary protects the constitution and judges interpret the laws in court and expound constitution. Real life examples can be very contradictory and be seen in different ways by different judges e.g. the X case. Bibliography.Heywood, Andrew (2007) Politics. Third Edition, Palgrave.http//theblog.philosophytalk.org/2007/02/democracy_and_t.htmlhttp//www.ifpa.ie/eng/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Abortion-in-Ireland-Legal-Timelinehttp//www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/28/uk.immigrationpolicy1