Judicial Power: Passing Laws In The Courtroom

In the United States, the role of judges is to interpret the law, not make the law. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges states that judges should respect and comply with the law and should act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Judges are expected to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, including personal conduct, and are subject to constant public scrutiny. While judges do not pass laws, they can interpret the law and issue judicial opinions that may differ from existing laws, compelling re-legislation by the appropriate legislative body.

Judges interpret the law, not make it

While it is often claimed that judges interpret the law rather than make it, this is not the full story. Judges are bound by a Code of Conduct, which includes rules requiring them to respect and comply with the law, and to act in a way that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. However, in practice, the actions of judges can have a significant impact on the law, and in some cases, they may even be accused of pursuing partisan political agendas.

The role of judges in interpreting the law is crucial, as they must apply general legal principles to specific cases. This process inherently involves a degree of subjectivity, and different judges may interpret the law in different ways. In addition, judges may be called upon to resolve ambiguities in the law, fill in gaps, or develop new principles to address novel issues that arise. This can result in judges having a significant influence on the development of the law over time.

In the United States, the Supreme Court plays a particularly important role in shaping the law. The Court's decisions can have far-reaching consequences, and its judges are often accused of pursuing political agendas. For example, some commentators have argued that the Court's conservative majority has reinterpreted constitutional rights in a way that favours wealthy organizations while diminishing civil liberties. Others have claimed that the Court has helped the Republican Party cling to power, with one writer stating that "the Supreme Court's Republican appointees issue rulings to help their party cling to political power."

Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court's legitimacy is derived not only from its legal expertise but also from public confidence in its independence, objectivity, and fairness. When judges are perceived to be acting improperly or pursuing partisan agendas, public trust in the judiciary can be eroded. Therefore, while judges may have a significant impact on the law, it is essential that they exercise their power with integrity and impartiality to maintain the legitimacy of the judicial system.

Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety

While judges do not make laws, they play a crucial role in interpreting and applying the law to specific cases, which can have a significant impact on people's lives. In the United States, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges outlines specific guidelines that judges must follow to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct specifically addresses the issue of impropriety, stating that "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities". This means that judges must not only avoid actual wrongdoing but also conduct themselves in a way that does not create the perception of impropriety.

The Code of Conduct provides several examples of how judges should avoid impropriety. Firstly, judges should respect and comply with the law and act in a way that promotes public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality. This includes refraining from allowing personal relationships, financial interests, or other external influences to impact their judicial conduct or judgment. Judges must also be mindful of the organizations they associate with and avoid membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. This extends to arranging meetings or regularly using clubs that are known to engage in such discriminatory practices.

Additionally, judges should not lend the prestige of their office to advance their private interests or those of others. They should also refrain from voluntarily testifying as a character witness. By adhering to these guidelines, judges can maintain their independence, integrity, and impartiality, which are essential for upholding the public's trust in the judiciary.

It is worth noting that the concept of "appearance of impropriety" is subjective and depends on the perspective of reasonable minds with knowledge of all relevant circumstances. Therefore, judges must be cautious in their conduct, understanding that their actions will be scrutinized by the public. While not every violation of the Code of Conduct may result in disciplinary action, it is crucial for judges to maintain the highest standards of ethical behavior to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.

Respect for the law

One of the Canons of the Code, Canon 2, specifically addresses the issue of respect for the law. According to Canon 2, a judge should respect and comply with the law at all times. This includes acting in a way that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Judges are expected to avoid any impropriety or appearance of impropriety in all their activities, both professional and personal. This means that judges must not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence their conduct or judgment. They should also refrain from voluntarily testifying as a character witness.

In addition, Canon 2 prohibits judges from holding membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. This extends to arranging meetings or regularly using clubs that are known to engage in such discriminatory practices. Judges are also expected to avoid any public manifestation of approval of invidious discrimination, as this could diminish public confidence in the judiciary.

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges is designed to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and it is important for judges to respect and comply with the law to uphold these values. While the Code provides guidance, it is up to the individual judge to interpret and apply the law in a way that is consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, and other relevant factors.

Outside influence

In the United States, a Code of Conduct for judges outlines the ethical standards that are expected of them. The Code of Conduct is designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

One of the key principles of the Code of Conduct is that a judge should not allow outside influence to impact their conduct or judgment. This includes influence from family, social, political, or financial relationships. Judges are also prohibited from using their position to advance private interests or to give the impression that they can be influenced.

Judges must also be mindful of any financial interests that could interfere with their impartial performance. They are allowed to accept compensation and reimbursement for law-related and extrajudicial activities, but only if the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing their judicial duties. Judges are also required to report any compensation received for activities outside of their judicial office.

In addition to financial considerations, judges must also be aware of any potential conflicts of interest that could impact their ability to preside over a case impartially. This includes any personal relationships or memberships in organizations that could create the appearance of impropriety.

The Code of Conduct also addresses the issue of "ex parte" communications, which are communications between a judge and one party to a case without the knowledge of the other parties. Judges are generally prohibited from engaging in ex parte communications, as it could compromise their impartiality and fairness in deciding a case.

Overall, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is designed to ensure that judges act with integrity and impartiality, and to promote public confidence in the judiciary. By following these guidelines, judges can help to ensure that their decisions are based on the facts and applicable laws, rather than external influences or personal interests.

Non-discriminatory membership

In the United States, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes a section on nondiscriminatory membership, which states that a judge should not hold membership in any organisation that practices invidious discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. This is outlined in Canon 2C of the Code of Conduct, which specifically addresses the issue of discriminatory membership practices.

Canon 2C is designed to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and maintain public confidence in the justice system. By adhering to this canon, judges are expected to avoid any appearance of impropriety that could arise from their association with discriminatory organisations. This includes not only formal membership but also any public manifestation of knowing approval of invidious discrimination, which could diminish the public's perception of the judiciary's fairness and impartiality.

The concept of non-discriminatory membership extends beyond the conduct of judges and is a fundamental principle enshrined in anti-discrimination laws around the world. These laws are designed to prevent discrimination against specific groups in various aspects of social life, including employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. For example, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) in the United States prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, religious creed, and sex, as demonstrated in the Meadowlands case, where a private country club was sued by a former female member who alleged gender-based discrimination.

Anti-discrimination laws vary across jurisdictions, but they commonly protect groups based on characteristics such as sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, and political opinion. These laws are rooted in principles of equality and aim to uphold basic human rights, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and various international treaties.

In summary, non-discriminatory membership is a critical aspect of maintaining an impartial and ethical judiciary, as well as promoting equality and protecting the rights of individuals in various spheres of social life.

Frequently asked questions