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
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur yy3195. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour 3,89 €. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
