Essay on “Several meanings of Politics in judicial politics study: Why ideological influence is not partisanship?”
4 views 0 purchase
Course
Law and Politics
Institution
EPSCI
This is an essay that looks into Tamanaha's work “Several meanings of Politics in judicial politics study: Why ideological influence is not partisanship?”, and provides supportive examples and arguments, as well as counteracts with his arguments.
“Several meanings of Politics in judicial politics study: Why
ideological influence is not partisanship?”
, “…The identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as the
impartial guardian of the rule of law” proclaimed Justice John Paul Stevens as the result of
Bush v.Gore case. The Bush v.Gore underlined a rising debate across the world – “Is the
judge still a mouthpiece of the law?”. While justices may portray themselves as dispassionate
applicants of the constitution, society often perceives them as political agents who want to
shape the world through the virtue of law. Thus, the very core of judicial system,
independence, and impartiality, are put into question.
And while public debate is an essential element of a democratic society, with judiciary being
no exception, the failure to understand the spectrum of “judicial politics” undermines public
faith, which is integral to judiciary’s functioning.
The spectrum of judicial politics is underlined in the article “Several meanings of politics in
judicial politics studies: Why Ideological Influence is not Partisanship?”, on which this essay
is based. The aim of the author, Brian Tamanaha, was to outline what is appropriate and what
is not about politics in judging, by exploring ideas of partisanship and ideological influence
in 5 political elements. While the goal of the reading was to draw a clear line in regards to
judicial politics, Mr.Tamanaha failed to provide unbiased arguments, stating that “judges
come to the same legal conclusion a substantial portion of the time regardless of differences
in their political ideology” and that “All five political aspects are givens of contemporary
judging”, thus stripping judicial system from any responsibility in regards to its politization.
While this essay incorporates the main ideas of the reading: partisanship, ideological
influence, and the 5 elements of politics – it also aims to reconstruct Tamanaha’s arguments
to reduce bias and bring attention to consequences of the political elements in the judiciary
branch. The essay, thus, aims to answer the question: How do elements of judicial politics
jeopardize public confidence in the judiciary branch?
When we talk about judicial politics, we consider involvement of judges in regulating,
influencing, and creating political decisions and policies that were made by another brunches.
To answer how does judicial politics jeopardizes public confidence, we need to set a clear
line between passive role of judiciary in politics and active political pursuit by judges. We
also need to outline the difference between partisanship and ideological influence, where the
first is an improper favoring one side over the other in each action, while the last is a body of
ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a person. This distinguishment will help us
understand that active chasing of political agenda in judiciary system, such as partisanship
and judicial appointments, is what sets a base for distrust towards the branch, thus
undermining passive political elements that are integral in judiciary’s system.
“The politicization of judicial appointments is in full swing and getting worse” says
Mr.Tamanaha in relation to one of the political elements in the judiciary branch. This essay
considers judicial appointments as active element used by political parties to pursue specific
decisions and policies. Though the author of the reading considers this element as “given of
contemporary judging”, this part of the essay will break the idea of judicial appointments as
essential element for the branch; it will also consider it as an element that undermines
democracy, and thus its devastating consequences to the public confidence in the rule of law.
To talk about judiciary appointments, one must always consider judicial main characteristic –
independence. As stated in the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
“Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper
motives”. Currently, we can see multiple countries using judicial appointments exactly for the
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller yy3195. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.22. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
