Ensuring the rule of law is upheld requires that the judiciary is protected to a certain extent. Over the years the need for judicial independence has been a point of discussion. The judges form a strong pillar on which democracy is entrenched and making the judicial system fragile will work to make democracy and the rule of law be compromised.
There should be no implementation of a system where the judges’ decisions are evaluated after ten years with the removal of office for the judges whom the population does not agree with their decisions. The main reason for protecting the judiciary is to prevent cases where judges are taken to the court of public opinion with disgruntled members of the public and partisan parties forming the jury on which the judges are tried.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Drawing from past incidences, individuals who are not favored by certain judgments can evolve into cartels that aim at removing judges who did not favor them in given court cases. In the mid-nineteenth century, abolitionists made threats to ignore court decisions and orders that sought to uphold slavery. Despite slavery being unacceptable according to human rights, the judges who were ruling against it would have possibly been kicked out of office had there been a provision to review judgments. Individuals with special interests would largely influence judgments through financial contributions and assurances of re-election when the ten-year term assessment comes.
Also, undertaking reviews for passed judgments will work to undermine the ability of judges to make independent judgments. In a recent case in Iowa, judges of the Supreme Court were ousted in a retention election. The retention election which was highly politicized acted to show that the independence of the judiciary can be compromised when the population and the ruling class seek to flex their muscles on judges who are seen as non-conforming according to the public opinion. Such moves act to jeopardize the freedom of the judges in making judgments thus making it the trend for judges to act in a way to conform to the prevailing political winds.
The confidence of the public in judges and the overall judicial system will be eroded if a provision to remove judges is entrenched. Given that the citizenry view judges as the custodians of law, having the ability to remove the judges from their positions will provide a platform on which judges are mocked consequently challenging the systems’ autonomy. Attacks directed to the judges will act to destroy the system.
Having an independent judiciary is a considerable milestone in achieving democracy and upholding the rule of law. Judges who can make independent rulings without fear of being victimized act to propel both political and economic gains in a nation. It, therefore, becomes paramount to shield judges to ensure that improper influence does not take hold of the judiciary mainly from the executive and legislative arms of the government as well as partisan interests from private citizens.
Security of tenure should be a top priority measure in protecting judges from partisan influence thus making it possible for them to make rulings within the constitution regardless of the popularity of the rulings among the ruling class as well as the general public. Evaluating judges’ performances after ten years and removing those whose decisions have not been popular among the public will open doors for major influence to the judicial system thus compromising rulings.
