How does a court system cope with a “changing of the guard” when a new administration is elected and key executives and managers are replaced, and/or when policy changes direction as a new political party assumes power?The best coping technique is instituting a system characterized by power separation. Accountability may be attained within the domain of administrative rulemaking by means of various institutional plans and practices. One may perceive bureaucratic accountability to be a classic agent-principal issue. Governmental cabinets, rather than parliaments, form the main bureaucratic controllers, being ideally positioned, owing to their central location in administration as well as legislative politics, to guarantee that implementation will be governed by the very political agenda that drives lawmaking. Ministerial workers are answerable, via a hierarchical command chain, to the Prime Minister, other ministers, the cabinet, and a coalition or the majority party. Thus, whilst drafting regulations, the very politicians responsible for formulating the enabling decree oversee bureaucrats. Accountability is mainly attained via informal politics involving government cabinet oversight, penalty and guidance. On the other hand, in governments marked by power separation, there is no hierarchical command chain commencing from the government’s legislative wing to civil servants tasked with rulemaking. A key example of this sort of system, the US, has three governmental bodies – the President, the House of Representatives, and the Senate – each chosen by diverse constituencies for different official terms. But the President alone holds executive power (Jean Monnet Center).
The American Constitution has very prudently divided the executive, judicial and legislative power in the nation and instituted three distinct governmental branches: The...
But accumulation of these powers within the “same hands” might, as cautioned by James Madison within Federalist Paper No. 47, lead the government to be justly considered a tyrannous administration (Blackman, 2017).
How does a new legal interpretation resulting from a court’s decision on an existing law related to court procedures, and how does the passage of a new law affect court administration?
The idea that resolving a pending conflict in accordance with the resolution of previous, similar conflicts is usually preferred is widely accepted by several decision-making models. Within the judicial domain, the ‘stare decisis’ doctrine constitutes the most important application of the above principle. ‘Stare decisis’ implies a court decision to stick to a prior decision despite not agreeing with, or having suspicions regarding, the decision’s outcome in terms of merits. Commentators and the stare decisis operation within the US court system have provided several justifications with respect to deferring to the judicial precedent. One assumption disagreeing with upsetting resolved cases enhances predictability, allowing more confident organization of stakeholder affairs (Kozel & Pojanowski, 2011).
Similarly, stare decisis offers a mechanism to respect reliance expenses incurred by stakeholders when conforming to established law, thereby promoting the principles of justice and fairness. More broadly, a sound stare decisis doctrine is in line with a judiciary that is marked by gradualism and stability instead of unpredictable changes. The maintenance of a fairly stable legal system facilitates the establishment of a law which transcends individual…
