What is the proper perspective of judicial action?
927929
I think you are on the right track. Exposing Judges to the electorate does undermine their judicial Independence. I think the best solution is a Judicial review committee of fellow judges not to uphold or strike down rulings ( we already have an appeals court system) but to rate the job performance of judges and give guidance. This Body would be empowered to give private and public rebukes and when necessary refer judges to legislative bodies for Impeachment in extreme cases of judicial misconduct. this would impose a buffer between judges and the electorate preserving judicial Independence while still exposing them to peer review and ultimately the electorate for severe misconduct.
751936
But for that power being exercised by the courts, we would not have known the foul play in the AP case of pardon. Our Constitution has envisaged a system of checks and balances. Judicial Review is a must for review all the administrative actions of the President and the Governors. There must be a system to check and control even the Judges of the SC and High Courts.
1141541
Litigation doctors or patient or Gov.??\n\nwhat we need is enlightenment
1127889
What you describe is sad, and the system we have devised.  The courts are the best that human beings have come up with so far in the history of the planet.  But they are far from perfect and mistakes happen all the time.  As you rightly point out, public "pretenders" are anything but helpful.\n\nWhat is important is to not quit, ever.  Even while imprisoned, a person can use his or her wits, and study the law and work actively on the appeal.  Deadlines are critical.\n\nBad things happen to good people.  And life is anything but fair.  Instead of focusing on what happened, sometimes all a person can do is look to the future and make the best of every day.
357634
A view to a compromise.
514558
Dear Friend,\n\nI THINK you mean judicial precedents.  Judges apply laws to facts.  Ideally, one set of facts should get you the same result no matter which judge you go before.  Also, ideally, you should be able to tell before you go to court what the outcome should be.  If law is reliable and uniformly applied by different judges, all of us can plan our lives accordingly.\n\nSo, judges basically copy each other.  If one judge said that a certain law dictates a certain result under certain circumstances, the next judge to face the same circumstances will try to do the same.  The decision of the prior judge is cited as "precedent," or authority.\n\nIf a really important court, like the United States Supreme Court, makes a precedent, everyone HAS to follow it.  If a lower court judge makes a precedent, other judges may consider it but don't have to.\n\nHope that helps!\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
820324
Affidevit in a court.
155821
A judge may be wrong if he does not have enough elements to make a correct judgement or if he is biased. To make a correct judgement he must know the issue at hand and the laws that govern just actions relating to the matter in question. The laws that guide him may themselves not be just at times so a real prerequisite for just judgements is to have just laws in place, then to have fair judges and perfect presentation of facts relating to the matter in question. A judge should never think that he or she is God.
1115106
IMHO You have asked a very sensible question. In an age of 'human rights' the proscriptive direction of the law towards protecting every single possession right down to the button on your shirt means that we are infact creating a much less liberal society in many respects.\n\nA case in point. I was taking some casual photos of a building which caught my eye because of the colour and texture surrounding an area of dereliction. AS I started shooting someone came running out of the office waving his hands, 'no, no, no' he exclaimed, 'you're not allowed. This is my building'.\n\nI started to argue with him and told him I live in a free country and can take photos of whatever I like. He became threatening and said I had no right to be standing on his driveway and told me in not uncertain terms to go away.\n\nI thought it best to move on. Life is too short to waste time with people like that. But afterwards I thought maybe he did have a point. What if I slipped and fell on his premises, even though I was perhaps a yard in off the street? Could he be liable under the public liability act to deal with a claim for a dislocated hip?\n\nI've read on the internet about corporations suing photographers for using clips from videos that show parts of their premises and presumably showing their logo or name in a wrong context.\n\nI think you are quite wise to be aware of the mad times in which we find ourselves, where everyone seems to be treading on eggshells when it comes to 'rights'.\n\nPersonally, I think the legal system has lost its way slightly and has gone off down a 'human rights' cul de sac off the main road. A subtle diversion from one of the main functions of the judiciary, which is to provide a system of public protection against political abuse of power. INstead we are busy suing each other instead of the government.
991820
Our legal system is based in English law, My question to you is how do you differentiate between a frivolous lawsuit and one that has merit. If a Dr. cuts off the wrong leg shouldn't he be held responsible for it. I know that is extreme, but some company's put out dangerous products and without a warning some people would get hurt. How do you best decide who is responsible if not in a court of law. I admit some lawsuits are just plain wrong, but how would you suppose that it be decided.
170758
Turn youself in. Recieve judgemnt from the judge. Then travel accordingly.
441306
Nothing is perfect...\n\nThe Constitutional Amendments as they stand are excellent, unfortunately, we do not have these rights like the Constitution says. \n\nWith all the pandering to left-wing activist judges and the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals, they are slowly taking away our rights and moving toward Socialism. \n\nIf the Constitution was interpreted by the Courts instead of judges legislating from the bench, we would see that our Constitution truly is the greatest living document in the world.\n\nWhy else would we have everyone in the world trying to get into our country?
126060
Judicial Discretion is the technical term for it, meaning that the judge has that option and can choose to follow those recommendations made by cousel. \n\nIn common terms though -- OUCH!
466256
FREEDOM of press is there so nothing wrong is expressing ones views in a magazine or newspaper.The people in general if they are educated should read it in the right perspective
166620
You will have to look it up. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.pdf
624412
The actions of my daily life are free of intrusion by the goverment. And that the govermant will stand up against another citizn who witholds my right.\n\nAnd this is only on condition that these actions do not infringe on other people's right of freedom.
230630
If you mean the actual law, it is constitutional law.  If you mean the best for understanding interpretation of those laws than try books on law from your local library.  Most are written for laymen rather than for lawyers.