Ought judges be independent of democratic pressures, or should they be subjected to the preferences and approval of the electorate? In this book, Bonneau and Hall use empirical data to shed light on these normative questions and offer a coherent defense of judicial elections.
This book provides an unprecedented analysis of the politics underlying the appointment of judges in Ireland, enlivened by a wealth of interview material, and putting the Irish experience into a broad comparative framework. It tells the inside story of the process by which judges are chosen both in cabinet and in the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board over the past three decades and charts a path for future reform of judicial appointment processes in Ireland. The research is based on a large number of interviews with senior judges, current and former politicians, Attorneys-General and members of the Judicial Appointments AdvisoryBoard. The circumstances surrounding decisions about institutional design and institutional change are reconstructed in meticulous detail, giving us an excellent insight into the significance of a complex series of events that govern the way in which judges in Ireland are chosen today. Author Jennifer Carroll MacNeill is both an IRCHSS Government of Ireland Scholar and the winner of the Basil Chubb Prize 2015 for the best politics PhD in Ireland. [Subject: Legal History, Legal Studies, Politics, Ireland]
A distinguished and experienced appellate court judge, Richard A. Posner offers in this new book a unique and, to orthodox legal thinkers, a startling perspective on how judges and justices decide cases. When conventional legal materials enable judges to ascertain the true facts of a case and apply clear pre-existing legal rules to them, Posner argues, they do so straightforwardly; that is the domain of legalist reasoning. However, in non-routine cases, the conventional materials run out and judges are on their own, navigating uncharted seas with equipment consisting of experience, emotions, and often unconscious beliefs. In doing so, they take on a legislative role, though one that is confined by internal and external constraints, such as professional ethics, opinions of respected colleagues, and limitations imposed by other branches of government on freewheeling judicial discretion. Occasional legislators, judges are motivated by political considerations in a broad and sometimes a narrow sense of that term. In that open area, most American judges are legal pragmatists. Legal pragmatism is forward-looking and policy-based. It focuses on the consequences of a decision in both the short and the long term, rather than on its antecedent logic. Legal pragmatism so understood is really just a form of ordinary practical reasoning, rather than some special kind of legal reasoning. Supreme Court justices are uniquely free from the constraints on ordinary judges and uniquely tempted to engage in legislative forms of adjudication. More than any other court, the Supreme Court is best understood as a political court.
Indonesia is the world's third largest democracy and its courts are an important part of its democratic system of governance. Since the transition from authoritarian rule in 1998, a range of new specialised courts have been established from the Commercial Courts to the Constitutional Court and the Fisheries Court. In addition, constitutional and legal changes have affirmed the principle of judicial independence and accountability. The growth of Indonesia's economy means that the courts are facing greater demands to resolve an increasing number of disputes. This volume offers an analysis of the politics of court reform through a review of judicial change and legal culture in Indonesia. A key concern is whether the reforms that have taken place have addressed the issues of the decline in professionalism and increase in corruption. This volume will be a vital resource for scholars of law, political science, law and development, and law and society.
In the United States, almost 90 percent of state judges have to run in popular elections to remain on the bench. In the past decade, this peculiarly American institution has produced vicious multi-million-dollar political election campaigns and high-profile allegations of judicial bias and misconduct. The People’s Courts traces the history of judicial elections and Americans’ quest for an independent judiciary—one that would ensure fairness for all before the law—from the colonial era to the present. In the aftermath of economic disaster, nineteenth-century reformers embraced popular elections as a way to make politically appointed judges less susceptible to partisan patronage and more independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. This effort to reinforce the separation of powers and limit government succeeded in many ways, but it created new threats to judicial independence and provoked further calls for reform. Merit selection emerged as the most promising means of reducing partisan and financial influence from judicial selection. It too, however, proved vulnerable to pressure from party politics and special interest groups. Yet, as Shugerman concludes, it still has more potential for protecting judicial independence than either political appointment or popular election. The People’s Courts shows how Americans have been deeply committed to judicial independence, but that commitment has also been manipulated by special interests. By understanding our history of judicial selection, we can better protect and preserve the independence of judges from political and partisan influence.
"In Electing Judges, James L. Gibson responds to the growing chorus of critics who fear that the politics of running for office undermine judicial independence. While many people have opinions on the topic, few have supported them with empirical evidence. Gibson rectifies this situation, offering the most systematic study to date of the impact of campaigns on public perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and the legitimacy of elected state courts-and his findings are both counterintuitive and controversial"--Page [four] of cover.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has started to implement what is arguably the most signi cant set of reforms since the Nice Treaty, with notably the doubling of the number of judges at the General Court and the disappearance of the Civil Service Tribunal. Controversies surrounding the process and outcomes of the reforms called for a broader re ection on the European Courts and the way they cope with old and new challenges. To this end, this volume brings together junior and seasoned academics and practitioners to take stock of the various aspects of these reforms and the overall functioning of the EU Judiciary, from comparative, ‘insider’, and ‘outsider’ perspectives. Broadening and deepening our understanding of the reorganisation of the EU Judiciary, the contributors offer incisive analyses of reforms and evolutions, including: – a critical appraisal of the reform process and the role and powers of the CJEU; – implications of the reforms for the Court of Justice and the General Court; – lessons from the practice of the now dismantled Civil Service Tribunal; – a re ection on the future Uni ed Patent Court; – an evaluation of the role of the CJEU’s members and staffs and their selection; – an insider’s perspective into the workings of the repeat players (Legal Services of the European Commission and of the European Parliament) and the parties’ lawyers; – an assessment of the procedural reforms before the Court of Justice and the General Court with a speci c focus on the PPU; – the unfolding and impact of the digital revolution (e-Curia) on the CJEU; – the challenges of the languages regime and legal reasoning before the CJEU. Comparative perspectives elucidate speci c judiciary reforms across Europe, including detailed analyses of developments at the European Court of Human Rights, the French Conseil Constitutionnel, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. As a timely assessment of the effects of recent reforms on the EU Courts’ decision-making practices, roles, and identities, and more broadly on the legitimacy of the EU and its institutions as a whole, this book is unparalleled. It will be of great value to practitioners engaged in EU litigation, scholars of European law and policymakers at EU institutions, and all those interested in judicial process and reform.
The main aim of this volume is to analyse common issues arising from increasing judicial power in the context of different political and legal systems, including those in North America, Africa, Europe, Australia, and Asia.