The Conceptual Differentiation Between Court Curbing and Judicial accountability
Court curbing is a strategic ruling system that legitimately delegates power to distinguished branches with overlapping authority as opposed to making the supreme court the epitome of rulings. In other words, court curbing measures reduce the judicial or supreme court’s powers and their impacts on rulings. Court curbing is an indication of public opinion in judicial rulings (Clark, 2009). The concept has a rich history in the USA as it can be traced back to the 1870s. On the other hand, judicial accountability is the aspect of making the judicial system responsible for actions, decisions, and behaviors. The system includes personal experts like judges and the members of the entire institution.
Political dynamics essentially affect both court curbing and judicial accountability. Both aspects play a crucial role in reducing the number of unconstitutionally held laws. For example, the upsurge in the level of court curbing in a specific year is integral in mitigating the level of unconstitutional laws in the subsequent year. Constitutional invalidations escalate the levels of injustice and hinder citizens from having an efficient judicial system. Tom’s article holds that court curbing in Congress may significantly affect judicial decision-making regardless of any threat of enactment. Court curbing can affect judicial independence considering that it can be a credible indication of waning judicial legitimacy, which is vital for the efficacy of an independent judicial system.
Court curbing is impaired by pessimistic outlooks concerning public or civilian support for courts. It is important to note that the concept is also attenuated by ideological differences and divergence between courts and Congress. The interactive relations between courts, Congress, and the public escalate the court curbing’s ability to enhance justice and accountability for courts. Court curbing and judicial accountability are intertwined elements that make legislators take responsibility, especially when they misinterpret their preferences. It is the role of the public to demand justice and accountability from legislators. For judicial accountability, the inspector general is a key player whose proposals are frequently forwarded to increase the judiciary’s competence. Although both elements focus on enhancing justice and efficiency in judicial operation, it is important to understand that public opinions and participation majorly influence court curbing. In contrast, judicial accountability is an institutionalized mechanism that makes law practitioners responsible to the public.
The rationale on trusting citizens to differentiate between court curbing and judicial accountability as primary defenders of judicial independence
According to Engst and Gschwend, citizens should be committed to judicial independence. The scholars argue that it is an essential factor in protecting the weak from those who have power and ensuring that the government does not exploit citizens. Independence in judicial systems protects the minority from the majority and ensures that poor peoples’ rights are not abused by the rich. Therefore, the citizens have a responsibility to differentiate court curbing and judicial accountability in their bid to defend judicial independence. It is the citizens who understand their challenges and preferences. Secondly, the constitution acknowledges the essence of judicial independence and conventions. In America, the need for accountability to legal practitioners and court curbing have been presented as essential phenomena. The members of the public should understand the scope of sacrificial accountability in judicial systems and the principles of court curbing. The concepts ofcourt curbing and judicial accountability are sophisticated and should be taught to the public. Knowledge of these ideologies
Judicial independence is essential in enhancing justice for all people, including alleged criminals. Secondly, it is necessary to note that public support is the basis of creating a shield for judicial independence (Driscoll & Nelson, 2021). The public has a big role to play in ensuring that the constitution is protected and justice is attained. Unfortunately, most citizens are not legally minded or equipped with knowledge that can help them make meaningful legal choices. Following this observation, it is agreeable that a number of citizens cannot be trusted inefficiently differentiating court curbing and judicial accountability. The creation of awareness about the dynamic of court curbing and judicial accountability will enable citizens to make better decisions in the struggle to enhance judicial independence.
References
Clark., T. S. (2009). The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy. Emory University American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, No. 4, October 2009, Pp. 971–989.
Driscoll, A & Nelson, M. J. (2021). The Costs of Court Curbing: Preliminary Evidence from the Latin American Public Opinion Project
Engst. B. G & Gschwend,. T. Citizens’ Commitment to Judicial Independence A Discrete Choice Experiment in Nine European Countries.
write