what is the role of judiciary in the success of democracy?
489409
Judiciary is one of the three branches: legislative, executive, judicial. If legislative branch prepares laws, judiciary controls their fulfilment and punishes those who don't obey. Constitution stipulates the main democratic principles and judges should follow them when making final decision. Judges should first of all be just, impartial. However everyone makes mistakes, even absolutely just, reliable people may blame innocent person. So generally even very good rules have gaps....
107398
This is because there is no system that can ideally order society. Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That is, democracy is not intended to give us "good" government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power.\n\nIt is important to recognize that democracy is not morally ideal. At the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. While a clear improvement over tyranny (in which the decision of a minority of 1 person makes it legitimate to harm the majority of all others), this coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that set protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a super-majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but as a practical matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.
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
584622
1) A political institution that allows citizens to driectly address the government, petition it and change it.\nTwo forms: Direct democracy (Athens) or republic (Rome)... Majority of democracies today are republics \n2) Either way the principle is that any government derives its power from the consent and will of the people.  Any governemnt that ignores this and destroys this connection loses its authority to govern\n3) It works by having citizens involved (directly and passively) in the political and civic life.  It's a little like asking how going to the market works.  How do you choose what product buy, how do you know what is the best and/or the cheapest product?  One stays informed about what is happening in their community, state, and nation.  Then citizens try to vote for the laws or officials that they believe will best address the wants and needs of the society.\n4) The benefit is that the government becomes responsive to the people and is able to change as society changes.  At the same time these changes occur slowly and thoughtfully due to the constant dissent and differing opinions.  DO NOT expect rapid action from a democracy unless it is a National Crisis.  A democracy is intended to seek the middle ground in legislation to accamodate the greates number of citizens while also trying to achieve no harm to any of its citizens.\n\n5) Succesful democracies have seperation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches.  They follow the "rule of law" and consider "due process of law" to be the keystone to the entirelegal/political systme.
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.
697684
The power to confirm appointments of US Supreme Court Judges by the President.  And my reading of the constitution (Articles I, II & III) and old law classes indicate that the the US Supreme court has no check on this power....as it would allow the court, in effect, to select their own members.\n\nSo much for 100% of the checks and balances theory.  If someone else can cite differently I would appreciate the information.
767942
The idea of an independent judiciary is that when somebody has the power over somebodies liberty, you can't have them swayed by political, or indeed public feelings. judges are employed to dispense justice, not the poiliticians, or indeed tabloid newpapers.\n\nIf there is disqueit about the leniency, or harshness of a sentence it can be handed down to a court of appeal to apply and ajustment to the sentence, or indeed quash a conviction and order a retrial.\n\nThis is a safegauard against bigotry and ill informed public prejudice,
742348
You are incorrect. The Cheif Justice presides over the Sumpreme Court.  The Court rules on the constitutinoality of laws passed by the legislature and signed by the president.  It's system of checks and balances and no branch of government "presides" of another.
611661
A judicial system is mandatory for a society to function well.\n\nIn the past, in times where there wasnt a justice system, people solved their problems with the Eye for an Eye method.This created chaos.\n\nJustice came as a way to establish harmony and peace in peoples lives.\n\nImagine a world without a judicial system, there will be no rules, People could just take your stuff and you wouldnt be able to complain, we would have no rights.\nThere will be fear and chaos.
1138305
It created the "inferior" courts authorized in Article III of the Constitution.\n\nIt created 13 federal District Courts, and three appellate Circuits. It also determined the number of Justices on the supreme court, and established appellate review of circuit court decisions.
1083528
The root cause of problems with justice in most countries is corruption.  When policemen, judges, and politicians make decisions based upon bribes rather than fairness and the rule of law, injustice breeds.
251542
According to Wikipedia "Legislation is by resolution of the Council of Ministers, ratified by royal decree, and must be compatible with the Shari'a (Islamic law). Justice is administered according to the Shari'a by a system of religious courts whose judges are appointed by the king on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council, composed of 12 senior jurists. The independence of the judiciary is protected by law. The king acts as the highest court of appeal and has the power to pardon. Access to high officials (usually at a majlis, or public audience) and the right to petition them directly are well-established traditions."\n\nFor the complete article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia
339456
It is the responsibility of the Court to interpret the Constitution as they feel it most appropriately applies to any case.  There are varied thoughts on whether they should act as they feel the framers meant the Constitution to work or whether modern day interpretations are best.
138849
This statement makes the assumption that there is a judicial section within the government just as in the US government.  The independend judiciary refers to the fact that the court system is used to enforce the law of the land as well as provide a balance against the misuse of power by the other sectors within the government, like the executive branch of government.
1090209
They are not necessary. They are an instrument that allows the people to pick a representative. Without them, it is hard to see how one could have a democracy. However, elections alone are not suffient to have a democracy.
775720
Creation of States and Union Territories thereby giving power to the State administration. Central government unifies these entities and in some matters like defence and foreign affairs they have more authority.\n\nIndependent Judiciary to resolve disputes between the states and unions.
726250
The battle over the Judiciary Act of 1801 illustrates the pronounced party conflict prevalent in America by 1801. Interests were no longer ignored and talk of partisanship kept quiet. The Federalist and Republican parties created a partisan atmosphere in all aspects of government. The judiciary which had seen only subtle partisan conflict in the past was now swept into the middle of the conflict between the two parties. Partisanship came to play a role in all functions of government, and the battle over the Judiciary Act of 1801 illustrates how enflamed this conflict had become. While partisanship did exist neither party saw their actions as partisan. The Republicans saw the Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801 as partisan. While Federalists saw it protecting the government. Conversely, Federalists saw the Republican repeal of the act as partisan. Yet Republicans saw their repeal as completely devoid of partisanship. Thus while partisanship did exist, it was often in the eye of the beholder. \n\nThe Judiciary Act of 1801, although enacted to correct for deficiencies in the judiciary, ignited partisan feuding. During the 1790s, the judiciary was set up in an almost unmanageable system of circuit riding. The justices had to travel the country and attend to circuit courts, which was a considerable burden. There was also the possibility of the justices hearing cases in the Supreme Court, which they had decided while on circuit. By 1800, it had become obvious that a less centralized and more efficient judiciary was necessary. Yet the reform of the judiciary for the best of reasons could not have come at a worse time. With Jefferson ready to ascend the presidency, the last minute appointment of new judges outraged Republicans and put Federalists on the defensive. Thus the Judiciary Act of 1801, which had at its heart much needed reform, became a partisan struggle which engulfed the Supreme Court.\n\nThe Constitution, which had laid out a skeleton of the judiciary, gave no specifics as to how to operate these courts. Therefore in 1789, congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. This act created a system of circuit courts, presided over by the six men sitting on the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 fleshed out the outline given in the Constitution, but in practice it soon became obvious that it had major flaws. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court was the only federal court. The six men on the Supreme Court attended to the courts in each circuit, and there were no other federal judges. The inordinate amount of travel, and the possibility of hearing the same case in appeal that a justice had decided earlier, led to an inefficient judiciary.1\n\nFor the justices the worst part of their duty on the Supreme Court was the extensive travel through harsh weather and often unmanageable roads. As John Jay described in a letter to William Cushing, "the terms of the Sup. Court should certainly be held at Seasons less severe to the Court & Parties than Feb & Aug."2 In another letter to Cushing, Jay one again described the difficulties of travel through harsh weather, writing, "I am prepared and purpose to set out for Ph. Tomorrow if the weather should prove fair. for altho I have regained more Health...I find it delicate, and not sufficiently confirmed to admit of my travelling in bad weather."3\n\n\n\n\n\nTypical South Carolina Road\n\nAlthough there are numerous examples of the justices complaining of bad weather or poor conditions to one another, as early as 1792 all six justices had written President Washington concerning this flaw in the new judiciary. Jay and his fellow justices hoped that Washington could aid them in what they saw as "burdens laid upon us so excessive that we cannot forbear representing them in strong and explicit terms" and complained that "we cannot reconcile ourselves to the idea of existing in exile from our families."4 In another letter from the same year the j