Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Deference Discussion
Judicial deference: does it give too much power to institutions?
In theory, judicial deference, far from giving too much power to institutions, upholds the idea of a separation of powers in government, and checks and balances. Legislatures are supposed to decide issues of policy by finding out the facts of a situation and making laws to address constituent's specific needs. The legislature is the most responsive entity of all of the branches of government and has unique tools to investigate issues. The judiciary decides upon questions of law and principles and defers to the legislature in questions of fact, just as the legislature must defer to the judiciary upon issues such as interpretation and constitutionality. The judiciary is shielded from the popular will and pressures of politics, but sometimes, in the case of rapidly-shifting events the judiciary should defer to the specific data yielded by the fact-finding exercises of the legislature.
But many scholars counter that this "simplistic formula" does not accurately describe the courts' confused approach to legislative fact-finding, and the problem with judicial deference is not that it makes one branch of government too powerful, but that it is quite arbitrarily enforced (Borgmann 2008). "Although the courts often speak in terms of deference, they follow no consistent or predictable pattern in deciding whether to defer in a given case. Moreover, blanket judicial deference to legislative fact-finding would not be a wise general rule. Because social fact-finding plays a decisive role in constitutional analysis, blind judicial deference would undermine the courts' responsibility to protect individual rights," as in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, where the psychological facts in terms of the impact of segregation upon young black students was part of the court's justification for its decision outlawing segregation (Borgmann 2008)
Works Cited
Borgmann, Caitlin E. (2008, February 28). Rethinking judicial deference to legislative fact-finding. Indiana Law Journal. 84. 1. Available March 26, 2009 at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1098983
" In short, when it comes to the First Amendment, greater issues are at stake beyond the immediate interests of the corporations in question. There must be a compelling state interest to limit freedom of expression. Why doesn't it make a difference whether the corporate speech is about matters that materially affect its business interests? It is not the state's place to regulate when and if First Amendment rights apply in certain
Stare decisis, from the Latin meaning "to stand by that which is decided," is a judicial doctrine, which provides that precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts ('Lectric). The doctrine of stare decisis has developed in common-law legal systems, which enable judges to create law through judicial interpretation. In contrast, jurisdictions with a civil-law legal system reject the doctrine of stare decisis, because civil-law systems require a stricter
In fact, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Slonim notes that the need for a bill of rights was not even a topic of discussion until Virginian delegate George Mason raised the issue just several days before the Convention was scheduled to rise on September 17; Mason suggested that a bill of rights "would give great quiet to the people." Following this assertion, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts moved that the
Tennessee Valley TVA v. Hill Questions Do you agree with the Court's decision, based upon the language of the Endangered Species Act quoted above? That is, did the Endangered Species Act preclude construction of the dam? Should the ESA have precluded construction of the dam? Was Congress right to amend the ESA to permit the dam to be built? The Supreme Court acted correctly in its decidedly rigid invocation of Section 7 of
The court pointed out that the reason next friend status is observed to occur almost exclusively among prisoner's relatives is because a family member typically decides to step in when the competence of the prisoner is in question. The Court also argued that this case was easily distinguished from Hamdi (2002) because Newman already had a preexisting relationship with Padilla. The government also argued that the District Court of the
District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) represents the U.S. Supreme Court's single biggest intervention in Second Amendment jurisprudence. The case was one which had been deliberately manufactured by a small cadre of ideologues: the case was organized and funded from the first by Robert Levy, a Senior Fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute. In 2010, Levy would address his own achievements in getting