Judicial populism

Last updated

Judicial populism or juridical populism is a phenomenon where the judgments and actions of the courts are driven by the perception of the masses or certain groups. [1] The term, which some refer to as popular constitutionalism, has been described as a reaction to the perceived elitist bias in the legal system.

Contents

Judicial populism can also refer to the actions of the courts that reflect public sentiment or those aimed at garnering public support for the judicial institution. [2]

Background

Judicial populism addresses the argument that the judicial institution does not represent the interest of the public or a group of people. Police Everywhere Justice Nowhere, rally at the State Capitol in St Paul, MN after the not guilty verdict in the Yanez trial (34543469773).jpg
Judicial populism addresses the argument that the judicial institution does not represent the interest of the public or a group of people.

Judicial populism is considered an aspect of populist politics, particularly the strand that claims to represent the interests of the people against a corrupt elite. [3] Due to accusations of excessive privileges, inefficiencies, and possible corruption, there is an increased hostility towards the judicial system and the creation of an atmosphere of distrust for the courts. [2] Activism among populist groups calls for judicial decisions that reflect the collective will of the people within a particular subculture.

In response, there are court judgments that are made as a form of self-representation to appease the public, obtain support or legitimacy by reflecting public sentiment. This can be demonstrated in the so-called dialectic court proceedings, which no longer focus on the evaluation of evidence but their legitimacy. [4] The position is that this type of populism can reduce the alienation or distance of the citizens to the judicial institution due to an expectation that decisions are more meaningful to their lives. [4]

There are also theorists who maintain that judicial decisions are anti-democratic in character and view these decisions as judicial intervention. [5] This position is prominent in the antagonism towards decisions involving social rights where the constitutional backgrounds of judges are considered inadequate due to issues of technical competence or a perceived judicial prejudice. [5] It is also argued that judges are not elected to their positions and, for this reason, must not be allowed to decide on the social or economic path of a country. [5]

In the United States, the call for judicial populism also emerges according to political ideologies. In the past, it came with the conservative assault to the so-called "judicial supremacy" as the courts outlawed segregation and created reproductive rights, among other issues. [6] In the modern period, the call is often made by liberal critics who assail what is perceived as "right-wing rulings". [6]

Concept

As a theory, judicial populism holds that the law emanates from some kind of collective general will. [7] It is founded on democratic and participatory theory wherein the people or at least their elected representatives get to decide policy, the state's developmental path, and the administration of justice. [5] Larry Kramer, for instance, argued that the people do not only share in construing the Constitution but also render the final judgment concerning its meaning. [6] The concept is also a basis of the Chinese legal tradition established during the Cultural Revolution-era and its modern revival. [8] It draws from the cultural belief of the non-finality of justice as well as the revolutionary values such as democratic justice and deliberative justice, which rely on the collective judgment of the people. [9]

Critics argue that instead of the courts serving as places that determine the liability for criminally relevant acts, the emergence of judicial populism crushes the criminal justice system as it transforms trials into methods of social control. [10] The opposing concept to judicial populism is judicial professionalism. This view maintains that knowledge, rationality, and ethics should be the focus in legal practice. [1] There is also a requirement for judges to be neutral and to avoid conflict of interest, a component that is present in judicial populism as the judge is involved in local affairs and forges a close relationship with the people. [9]

Judicial populism vs judicial activism

Judicial populism is distinguished from judicial activism, which is described as a phenomenon wherein judges allow their personal views to guide their decisions. [11] Like judicial populism, the latter - as described by Bradley Canon - draws from the constitutional dialogue/constitutional interdependence paradigm, which describes the judiciary as a participant to the constitutional interactions that involve other government branches. Here, instead of an omnipotent institution, the judiciary operates according to a framework based on interdependency and interaction while assuming the role of active protector of core social values. [12] However, judicial activism is about the forced reading of the law by judges with the goal different from the intention of the legislative branch. [13]

Applications

An example of judicial populism is Mark Tushnet's suggestion of a populist American constitutional law that advances the so-called "thin Constitution", which would codify constitutionally protected and enforceable positive economic and social rights. [14]

There is also the case of judicial elections, which has been identified as an instrument of popular constitutionalism. [15] This framework emphasizes the importance of state judicial elections in the United States, particularly how the elected state justices can "stimulate and structure constitutional deliberations" on the national level. [16]

Mass media has been cited for its role in dictating judicial agenda. [4] It serves as a platform where the judicial institution is evaluated, facilitating new types of accountability regarding how justice is administered. [17] For instance, it is claimed that media reporting has led to juristic activism that favor a populist expansion of fundamental rights and natural justice. [17]

Cases of judicial populism include its emergence in Brazil since the mass protests of 2013. The series of political and economic crises that ensued have influenced the shift towards judicial decisions that involve judicial self-presentation before the public. [18] It is also observed that judges at various points have made decisions sought by the masses or the middle class, promulgating decisions that have no legal arguments, no constitutional basis, and narrow constitutional protection in the name of justice. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important for the idea of separation of powers.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

The judiciary of Germany is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Germany.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">V. R. Krishna Iyer</span> Indian judge (1914–2014)

Justice Vaidyanathapuram Rama Iyer Krishna Iyer was an Indian judge who became a pioneer of judicial activism. He pioneered the legal-aid movement in the country. Before that, he was a state minister and politician.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial Yuan</span> Judicial branch of Taiwan

The Judicial Yuan is the judicial branch of the government of Taiwan. It runs a Constitutional Court and oversees all systems of courts of Taiwan, including ordinary courts like the supreme court, high courts, district courts as well as special courts like administrative courts and disciplinary courts. By Taiwanese law, the Judicial Yuan holds the following powers:

The Lochner era was a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court's own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies". The court did this by using its interpretation of substantive due process to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights. The era takes its name from a 1905 case, Lochner v. New York. The beginning of the era is usually marked earlier, with the Court's decision in Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), and its end marked forty years later in the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which overturned an earlier Lochner-era decision.

Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of their decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The term usually implies that judges make rulings based on their own views rather than on precedent. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to judicial interpretation, statutory interpretation, and separation of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Living Constitution</span> U.S. Constitutional interpretation

The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the U.S. constitution holds a dynamic meaning even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments. The idea is associated with views that contemporary society should be considered in the constitutional interpretation of phrases. The Constitution is referred to as the living law of the land as it is transformed according to necessities of the time and the situation. Some supporters of the living method of interpretation, such as professors Michael Kammen and Bruce Ackerman, refer to themselves as organicists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Nepal</span> Highest court in Nepal

The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It is designated as the court of record by the Constitution of Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty judges and a Chief Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of France</span>

French law has a dual jurisdictional system comprising private law, also known as judicial law, and public law.

Constitutional theory is an area of constitutional law that focuses on the underpinnings of constitutional government. It overlaps with legal theory, constitutionalism, philosophy of law and democratic theory. It is not limited by country or jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of Spain</span> Court interpreting the Constitution of Spain

The Constitutional Court is the supreme interpreter of the Spanish Constitution, with the power to determine the constitutionality of acts and statutes made by any public body, central, regional, or local in Spain. It is defined in Part IX of the Constitution of Spain, and further governed by Organic Laws 2/1979, 8/1984, 4/1985, 6/1988, 7/1999 and 1/2000. The Court is the "supreme interpreter" of the Constitution, but since the Court is not a part of the Spanish Judiciary, the Supreme Court is the highest court for all judicial matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. S. Verma</span> 27th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. He was the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2003, and chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists in its history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of Indonesia</span>

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia is one of the apex courts in Indonesia along with the Indonesian Supreme Court. Its primary role is reviewing the constitutionality of Acts (undang-undang). It also has other functions, including resolving disputes over the powers of state institutions, settling disputes over the results of general elections, deciding on the dissolution of political parties, and supervising impeachment. The last two functions have never been exercised by the Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rule of law</span> Political situation in which every citizen is subject to the law

The rule of law is a political ideal that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders. It is sometimes stated simply as "no one is above the law". The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat. It refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule. The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopædia Britannica as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial interpretation</span> Ways courts interpret laws, especially Constitutional laws

Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary. This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.

Constitutionalism is "a compound of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separation of powers in Singapore</span>

The Separation of powers in Singapore is governed by Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which splits the power to govern the country between three branches of government – the parliament, which makes laws; the executive, which executes them; and the judiciary, which enforces them. Each branch, while wielding legitimate power and being protected from external influences, is subject to a system of checks and balances by the other branches to prevent abuse of power. This Westminster constitutional model was inherited from the British during Singapore's colonial years.

Richard Davies Parker is an American legal scholar who serves as the Paul W. Williams Professor of Criminal Justice at Harvard Law School, where he has taught constitutional law and criminal law since 1974. He also serves as chairman of the Citizens Flag Alliance, an American nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing a constitutional amendment that would protect the American flag against acts of physical desecration.

References

  1. 1 2 Li, Yuwen (2016). The Judicial System and Reform in Post-Mao China: Stumbling Towards Justice. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN   978-1-317-02655-6.
  2. 1 2 Hammergren, Linn (2010). Envisioning Reform: Improving Judicial Performance in Latin America . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. pp.  93. ISBN   978-0-271-02933-7.
  3. ↑ Chengeta, Thompson (26 September 2017). "Politics, populism and the law: who really speaks for the Kenyan people?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
  4. 1 2 3 Delledonne, Giacomo; Martinico, Giuseppe; Monti, Matteo; Pacini, Fabio (2020). Italian Populism and Constitutional Law: Strategies, Conflicts and Dilemmas. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 14, 306. ISBN   978-3-030-37400-6.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Gargarella, Roberto; Roux, Theunis (2017). Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies: An Institutional Voice for the Poor?. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN   978-1-351-94795-4.
  6. 1 2 3 Tribe, Laurence H. (2004-10-24). "'The People Themselves': Judicial Populism". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2020-04-08.
  7. ↑ Schecter, Darrow (2013). Critical Theory in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 36. ISBN   978-1-4411-0546-2.
  8. ↑ Carl Minzner, Legal Reform in the Xi Jinping Era, 20 Asia Policy. 4 (2015)
  9. 1 2 Alford, William P.; Kirby, William; Winston, Kenneth (2010-10-07). Prospects for the Professions in China. Routledge. ISBN   978-1-136-90992-4.
  10. ↑ Delledonne, Giacomo; Martinico, Giuseppe; Monti, Matteo; Pacini, Fabio (2020). Italian Populism and Constitutional Law: Strategies, Conflicts and Dilemmas. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. p. 305. ISBN   978-3-030-37400-6.
  11. ↑ As quoted in "Takings Clause Jurisprudence: Muddled, Perhaps; Judicial Activism, No" DF O'Scannlain, Geo. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 2002
  12. ↑ Cohn, Margit; Kremnitzer, Mordechai (July 2005). "Judicial Activism: A Multidimensional Model". Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence. 18 (2): 333–356. doi:10.1017/S0841820900004033. ISSN   0841-8209. S2CID   147158393.
  13. ↑ "Beyond judicial activism". Fundación Civismo. 2018-10-30. Retrieved 2020-06-08.
  14. ↑ White, Charles S. (2018-09-01). Democracy's Discontent and Civic Learning: Multiple Perspectives. Charlotte, NC: IAP. p. 138. ISBN   978-1-64113-339-5.
  15. ↑ Pozen, David E. (2010). "Judicial elections as popular constitutionalism". Columbia Law Review. 110 (8): 2047–2134. ISSN   0010-1958.
  16. ↑ Mansker, Nicole; Devins, Neal (April 3, 2011). "Do Judicial Elections Facilitate Popular Constitutionalism; Can they?". Columbia Law Review. 111: 27–37.
  17. 1 2 Gandhi, Praveen Kumar (1985). Social Action Through Law. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. p. 64.
  18. ↑ Arguelhes, Diego (2017). "Judges Speaking for the People: Judicial Populism beyond Judicial Decisions". Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional (in German). doi:10.17176/20170504-091531 . Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  19. ↑ Salgado, Desiree; Gabardo, Emerson (2021). "The Role of the Judicial Branch in Brazilian Rule of Law Erosion". Revista de Investigações Constitucionais. 8 (3): 731–769. doi: 10.5380/rinc.v8i3.83336 . S2CID   245527200.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.