Why is the judiciary critical in our system of goverment?
353900
Because the judiciary measures law against written standards, called the Constitution and Legal Precendent.\n\nExecutive and Legislative do not measure law. They propose it, and create it. The standard they do this against is political opinion, popular vote, social moods/trends and reactionary decisioning (sometimes).\n\nTherefore, the Judiciary is in place to balance the results of lawmaking against law-validating, to protect everyone from the unintended negative consequences of bad lawmaking.
424754
Absolutely. It's essential. The reason for this is that legislators can't possibly cover everything. The world is constantly changing, and there are always new issues coming up - issues that no one would have otherwise thought of. So, a lot of laws have to be made up when there is a need for it.\n\nEDIT: I'd like to add that judges don't just make up laws arbitrarily. Believe it or not, judges actually try to be fair, but the problem is it's not always clear what the right decision is, and the existing laws are either archaic or insufficient for making that decision. That is why both sides of an argument have to be heard. Then a jury deliberates and prescribes a judgement. The judge then takes everything into careful consideration and makes his or her decision. A new law is made if the situation calls for it.
753417
The judicial branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. It consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.\nIt acts as checks and balance on the other two governing branches, the Executive and Legislative branches, therefore it must be independent of the other two branches.  the American Government needs all three branches to function properly.  Taking any one out of the equation would give you a nonworking equation and what we know as democracy in this country would fail.
626237
A Democracy can operate using a number of different voting systems, but essentially needs to ensure that the Government renews its mandate on a regular basis (4 to 5 years).\n\nAll people of a country must be involved in the democratic process.\n\nThe Government must be independant from the Judiciary. The courst must be free to pass judgement based around the laws of the land rather than on the political will of the Government.\n\nThe Government will need support from a non-partisan civil authority to ensure that laws are drafted correctly and constitutionally. The civil authorities also ensure that government policy is carried out.\n\nThe policing of a Democracy must be answerable to the courts as well as the civil authorities.\n\nTaxes pay for all of this.\n\nThe best or worst democracy is a subjective matter. Good or bad is not measurable in a way that allows comparison between the various systems.\n\nYou could survey different populations to take their views, but that will have problems. Bad Governments will try and influence the results and people may answer based around their view of their politicians rather than on the system itself.
194312
To prevent a tyranical abuse of power, maintain the US as a republic instead of a dictatorship, and to provide weights and balances in passing special interest laws.\n\nThis is one reason
1027573
There is actually, ideologically one judiciary. But there are 50 courts. One for each state. \n\nIn each state there are district courts and there are circuit courts. \n\nDistrict courts basically cover criminal cases for states and commonwealths. Most of the time criminal cases are tried in district court if they are murder, larceny, burglary, rape, violence, and drug stuff.  But not always. In some states they include things like discrimination, jurisdictional disputes between state and local governments and a plethora of other serious things. \n\nCircuit Courts basically hear family law, civil stuff like money issues, divorces, lawsuits against neighbors, tort claims and civil stuff that isn't criminal. But each state has the authority to paint its own definition of the courts by legislation. \n\nAppellate courts are for appeals after one court or another has ruled. Like if Ford Motor Company gets into a fight with Firestone Tires and the courts award one side a billion dollars in damages and then the other side goes to court and appeals the money settlement arguing that the side that won a billion dollars got an excessive fine imposed and that it is unconstitutional to fine excessively. \n\nThe U.S. Supreme Court only hears Constitutional issues on matters that come from lower courts, appellate courts and district courts. If it isn't a Constitutional question, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't hear it. \n\nAlmost all courts in this country are State Courts. Unless the crime is federal, like bank robbery or drug trafficking where you get picked up by the DEA or if you firebomb a bunch of log trucks in a Forest Service forest, you will not end up in Federal Court. The federal courts only hear federal crimes. \n\nMost of the crimes in this country are the jurisdiction of the state courts. They are the courts for issues, which, under MOST circumstances, are petty. Like juvenile courts where a kid shoplifts a pack of cigarettes from a convenience store. Or where a dog jumps the fence and goes into the neighbors yard and bites the homeowner next door. Serious, but not on the same level as murder or raping a 10 year old girl. And then there is traffic court. Traffic courts are like ticket courts where you get a fine for driving over the speed limit, parking in the mayor's spot at the mall or running over a fire hydrant when you are coming home from work. \n\nGranted there are severe issues heard in these courts, too. Like a 15 year old who gets tried in juvenile court for murdering his mother, or dog court where a guy doesn't have a dog, but he has a tiger in his back yard and the neighbors are scared shitless. And there is always the drunk driver who gets into an 18 wheeler full of produce and hauls off down an Indiana highway and runs into 3 school busses full of children on their way home from Vacation Bible School whose case gets heard in traffic court, first, at least. \n\nSo the courts all have different jurisdictions and they all handle basically similar but not all the same types of cases. It depends on your state which jurisdictions those courts have in common with other states.
429582
I must answer this from the perspective of an actual government, not just the hypothetical one, so things may vary somewhat (functions and powers may be differently distributed).  But I believe the basic approach is sound for those operating under a representative system of government other than the U.S. Constitution.\n\nSeveral want to suggest all three of these 'branches' are "equally important". \n\nI may agree with what I THINK they mean, but I also think they misunderstand the question, and perhaps the American system of government.\n\nI would agre that all three functions ARE important (even necessary) to a properly functioning state.\n\nI would also agree that there should be a  healthy 'balance' in which each has its own sphere (not trampling on the others) and even has the ability to act as a check on the others (what Americans call 'checks and balances').\n\nBut that is not the same thing as saying all three have "equal" powers or importance.   \n\nKeeping all that in view, I believe the LEGISLATIVE (or what you call the "parlimentarian") is the most important.  It is  THE branch most directly respresntative of and accountable to the people.  It is also THE source of laws, and what is more central to governing that the system of LAWS?\n\nYes, the other branches have important functions in seeing that laws are effectively and fairly carried out, and may even have some authority to prevent (by exective veto) or rescind (by judicial decision) at least some laws, within limits (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court can declare that a law is void because it violates the Constitution, which takes precedence as THE foundational law).  But neither of these branches can MAKE the laws (at least they are not SUPPOSED to!!)   In particular, the courts --as important as their role is in assuring that our laws are upheld-- COULD not be 'the most important in the POLITICAL systm' when (as in the U.S. design) the judges do not stand for election and so are to some extent OUTSIDE "politics".\n\nA bit of support for this understanding may be found in the 2nd definition of "political" in Webster's--\n  "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" --   From this perspective, clearly the legislative branch, and secondarily the executive, have the primacy.\n\nThe much greater detail of Article II of U.S. Constitution --that concerning the legislature -- is one evidence of the importance the founding fathers placed on this branch.  (Their writings back this up.)
494756
The Marbury case established judicial review in American courts. This case also set up the basis for the Supreme Court being an active, law making body rather than the puppet court it was at its inception. Early on the Supreme Court was a joke. Early justices often left the court to take other jobs, even judgeships with the states (sitting on a state court was considered more prestigious at the time). Marbury made the court vital. The court stood up to the president and flexed its power. Without Marbury, the Supreme Court would be a hollow body with no real authority.
1131588
The situation we are in, and have been in for several generations, is one in which intelligent, representative government is increasingly impossible, simply because of the sheer size and scope of government. If we want a government that is controlled by our representatives, we need a government that is sufficiently limited in size and scope for it to be humanly possible for our representatives to know and understand what it is doing and what is being suggested that it do. For the people's representatives to regain control of the government, its size and scope must be radically reduced.
679651
One HUGE example of this is the fact that the Constitution has been amended so many times, and also that the legislative branch is continually passing new laws to accomodate modern values and the judicial branch is constantly deciding on the constitutionality of ideals that probably didn't even exist a hundred years ago (such as abortion or civil rights laws). The  government changes as the country changes.
913515
the three branches of government serve as a system of checks and balances where all branches are important in developing/enforcing laws and policies that help the country to run smoothly.  It also helps to promote ethical conduct amongst politicians...pretty successful that has been
40225
I must commend you on one of the most thoughtful (and complex) questions I have had the pleasure to read--and try to understand--since I began at Yahoo! Answers.\n\nI see the logic of the argument you are offering.  It definitely gets into the whole "separation of powers" issue.  What IS Congress' role in confiming members of the judiciary?\n\nUnfortunately, there is always going to be a political element in presidential appointments.  And with the legislative arm charged with signing off on most of those appointments, the political factor increases dramatically.\n\nIn this case, it appears many people, in either party, believe the judges appointed by President Bush could or would have a particular agenda--whether or not that was actually the truth.  It certainly wasn't spelled out by the president, but supporters and detractors both strongly felt it was certainly implied.\n\nDoes this judge (Alito) or have any judges nominated by Bush or any other president truly have or had predetermined opinions on issues the court may address?  The altruist in me says, "No!  These judges have sworn to apply the law, and nothing but the law, to the decisions they hand down".  But the politician in me says, "Bush and his supporters have been salivating for years to stack the court with conservatives to challenge Roe v. Wade.  How can he not try and make that happen?"\n\nSo where does this leave Congress?  Forced to judge a judge by determining, right or wrong, if they will in fact use only the law in arriving in their rulings.  That they either have no personal stake in a decision or wouldn't allow it to influence them.  It leads to some strange and unusual exchanges between those questioning and answering.\n\nAnd when you factor in the partisanship inherent in any legislative process, it can and has gotten downright ugly.  Hearings for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas immediately come to mind; I know there are many others.\n\nIn short, this is an imperfect system that must place an imperfect individual (in that they cannot be TRULY impartial) into a position that affects our nations' history.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's held up as well as it has over the years.\n\nI hope I've fairly addressed your question.  Thanks again for making me put on my thinking cap.  I need that every once in a while.
63223
If a society is stupid enough to allow the judicial branch of the systems to be corrupt and make up laws as they go, and not check them, then the people get what they deserve for never asking or confronting. Liars defend corruption because they are most likely monetarily gaining/in bed with the same ilk. Lawyers (not all) are bought off and do not necessarily need to be on any side of truth to make big money. Often it is the truthful lawyers not doing so well. When lies are worth more than truth, then said given society has serious problems. End of story.\n\nGovernments (Fed) biggest purpose these days is to create wars & take from the productive to give to the sandbaggers. Not the truly needy, mind you but, the lazy asses. It is how socialism works and grows into communism- by offering more and more handouts in return, and for your vote. \n\nLaughable, but, by all means disprove it :o)
863888
Governments reprsent a congregation of power. Power attracts money. Whenever too much power and money gets concentrated in one place, bad things are bound to happen.\n\nOur founders were looking to prevent that by explicitly enumerating the powers of the federal government. All other powers not mentioned in the Constitution and the ammendments that followed were to be in th hands of the states and the people.\n\nWe've been folling away from that doctrine for some time, moreso over the last 6 years. In the current age of executive signing statements, domestic survellince, warrantless arrests and detentions, etc. one would be hard pressed to trust the government.\n\nThe founders of this country didn't trust their own government they created. Why should we trust ours?\n\n~X~
525880
Because the law requires it. It was written that way as a protection for the citizens to avoid the creation of a police state.
857191
It is called Checks and Balances. This means that the Executive, Legislated and the Judicial Branches all check each other to ensure that one branch is not stronger than the other. Think about it if we only had one branch in government that branch would most likely abuse power.
1167111
Executive, Judicial and Legislative. The three are equal in importance, although George W. Bush seems to think otherwise. Here's details of the three with sources cited below:\n\nExecutive Branch\n\nThe branch of the U.S. government that is composed of the president and all the individuals, agencies, and departments that report to the president, and that is responsible for administering and enforcing the laws that Congress passes.\n\nThe U.S. government is composed of three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive. The legislative branch consists of the U.S. Congress, which is responsible for creating laws. The judicial branch is composed of the federal courts, which are responsible for ruling on the validity of the laws that Congress passes and applying them in individual cases. The executive branch differs from both in scope and function.\n\n\nJudicial Branch\n\nThe court systems of local, state, and federal governments, responsible for interpreting the laws passed by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch. These courts try criminal cases (in which a law may have been violated) or civil cases (disputes between parties over rights or responsibilities). The courts attempt to resolve conflicts impartially in order to protect the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, within the bounds of justice, as defined by the entire body of U.S. law. Some courts try only original cases, whereas others act as courts of appeals. The ultimate court of appeals is the Supreme Court. On the federal level, the system of checks and balances empowers Congress to create federal courts, and all federal judges must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The courts may exercise the powers of judicial review and injunction. \n\n\nLegislative Branch\n\nThe branch of the federal and state government empowered to make the laws that are then enforced by the executive branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. The legislative branch consists of Congress and the fifty state legislatures. At both state and federal levels, legislatures are made up of popularly elected representatives, who propose laws that are sensitive to the needs and interests of their local constituents. After a law is proposed as a bill, it is sent to appropriate committees for several stages of discussion, research, and modification. It is then debated in both legislative houses — except in Nebraska, which has a single-house legislature — and put to a vote. If the law is passed, it is still subject to further modification and final vote by both houses. Under the system of checks and balances, the president can refuse to sign the bill into law (through the veto power). The legislature can then vote to override the veto. Other checks and balances include legislative powers to impeach public officials (see impeachment), confirm appointments to the executive and judicial branches, and vote on appropriations.