The judicial action in the United States is an integral part of democracy. This practice allows for resolving different controversies and conflicts between various parties by using the existing laws and previous precedents as the basis of decisions. Thus, judicial action is an essential element of the governmental system, however, it has some limitations. This paper aims to review the boundaries of judicial action and compare them.
Judicial action is a decision by a court, which resolves controversy between two parties. In the United States, judicial action has an essential meaning for the legal process and the interpretation of laws, since these rulings become Typically, the court hears the two parties involves and decides what must be done in the particular case, providing them with a neutral environment to voice their opinions on the problem.
The main characteristic here is the reactivity of courts, as they work only on cases that were brought to them (Jillson, 413). This is a limitation because courts cannot address any public controversies and other problems that require a resolution unless someone decides to go to court. In comparison, this limitation is similar to others reviewed in this paper, since the court’s primary responsibility is to review the case and make a decision. As with the enforcement and ensuring that the judicial action is followed, this institution is not responsible for these elements.
Supreme Court is an institution that presents a final decision on a case, which would mean that any problem can be resolved if addressed by the Supreme Court. However, a case does not necessarily get settled in a Supreme Court. It may be sent back to a lower court, and this court will use the instructions provided by the Supreme Court to make a decision. Moreover, not all cases can be examined by the Supreme Court, as the law clerk and solicitor general have control over the selection process (Jillson, 413). This is a limitation suggesting that some critical issues can be addressed only by lower courts, limiting their impact, similarly to other restrictions reviewed in this paper.
Some limits of judicial action are connected to the enforcement of the rulings because, in many cases, such decisions require a change in the way thousands of people or officials behave. One example is the issue of mandatory praying in schools, which was deemed unconstitutional, but many institutions in the United States continue using this practice (Jillson, 413). As was mentioned, this correlates with other limitations of judicial action, since the courts do not engage in the process of ensuring that their rulings are followed. Therefore, an issue is the need to raise awareness through state or local agencies to ensure that officials whose work is affected by a specific judicial action are aware of it.
Next, the limitation of stare decisions principle, according to which, prior court cases can serve as a president for court decisions in similar cases. This approach aims to create unity in the way the court system works since the judges are expected to support and abide by the decisions of other court judges. However, in real-life conditions, this doctrine is not strict enough, and thus courts can use the precedent as they deem suitable (Jillson, 413). On the other hand, the freedom associated with stare desisis allows the courts to improve the existing policies and avoid using old cases as the basis of their decisions forever. Unlike other limitations, this has a positive impact on the court system, allowing for uniformity and flexibility. Overall, judicial action as an independent entity is an element that enables democracy.
Work Cited
Jillson, Cal. American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change. Routledge, 2016.