The Importance of Rule of Law & an Independent Judiciary

As much as I’m sure there’s little value in getting into a discussion over the value and or dangers of universal health care in the United States, a recent court ruling regarding President Obama’s controversial health care bill brings up some interesting questions regarding the US judiciary system.  Typically when assessing the quality of democracy and or “freedom” in a developing state, one of the core questions asked is on the quality of rule of law and the relative independence of the judiciary.

There isn’t too much disagreement on just what is meant by “independent judiciary,” but what follows is one of the core components of an independent judiciary as defined by freedom house:

Is there independence, impartiality, and nondiscrimination in the administration of justice, including from economic, political or religious influences?

I’ve always found this question a bit fishy for us to ask, given my opinions of the US legal system. Certainly judges should be free from political pressures but it seems absurd to think anyone capable of being impartial regardless of political or religious beliefs, yet we assume precisely that on a daily basis as if somehow judges are more than human.  The issue of judicial impartiality in the states is one of constant debate among scholars.   This most recent national issue brings the question of an independent judiciary to the forefront of national debate.

Often on either side of the political fence, when a ruling is made that one doesn’t approve of the first reaction is to rail against the dangers of “activist judges” and how they’re dismantling our democratic system.  Unfortunately in most cases this attitude only seems to come up when one disagrees with whatever argument is made.  On the other hand when some judge makes a ruling ultimately aiming to shape the nature of US legislation in a manner one agrees with, said judge is typically seen as “defending democracy”.  A valuable question is just where this line should be drawn?

The responsibilities of legislators and judges certainly seem distinct but often in the States and other nations these lines are muddied.  After all, the constitution is hardly an easy document to draw hard and fast conclusions on, regardless of what politicians on either side of the aisle might argue.  Typically I’m quick to blame legislators for just about any failure in government, but in this instance it’s hard to do so, US legislators approved a bill (however sloppily) only to have it contested by judges across the country with a very disturbing tendency to be contested along political lines.

With the growing attitude of “strict constructionism” as a valid approach to the law, and the seemingly accepted idea that some judges are capable of seeing into the minds of our founding fathers, it’s helpful to remember some of the words etched on the Jefferson Memorial.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”