Do judges in the Uk made political decisions Outline

Do judges in the Uk made political decisions - Outline Example In the part of the Judiciary, however, its intervention in the legislative is controversial. The participation of the Judiciary branch in political decision-making applies only to the making of a common law, but their primary duty is to interpret the law and make sure that anyone who goes against it will be punished. Separation of Powers The major institutions of the British state would include the executive, the parliament and the judiciary. Each branch works "in the name of the Crown" which is the ruling monarch. Much like the roles of other government types, the branches have the roles of law making, implementation, and evaluation, respectively. However, the influence of a monarch would be the difference. In the Constitutional Fundamentals, the executive "comprises the Crown and the Government, including the Prime Minister and the government" (Anon., n.d). Its duties are to formulate and implement policies that the state and the government itself should abide. The Parliament compr ises of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The members of the House of Lords were unelected and were only appointed by the Crown. The Judiciary, as the term suggests, enacts the law and makes sure that it is properly exercised by every citizen of the nation. The Judiciary is an independent body. The legislature and the parliament should not influence the decisions of the judges and in the same way that the judges are not ought to make political decisions except for common laws. A common law, as the term suggests, comprises of general beliefs of people inspired by tradition, custom, and precedent (Anon., 2008). The status of the U.K. judges nowadays has been vague in terms of enactment of specified roles. As reported by Press Association (2011), former home secretary Lord Michael Howard said that the judges have "too much power" over the ruling of the state. This friction began when the High Court intervened with the Government's plan to pursue the "multibillion-pound secon dary school rebuilding programme." Lord Howard said that the judges are expected to stick to their responsibilities as law interpreters and leave the policy making to the executive (Press Association, 2011). This is the same to what Stevens (2005, p.55) stated that since the judges have taken a "more central role in political decision-making," their role as an independent body which exercises "impartiality" is already unreliable. In this note, the roles of the judges should be clarified. However, Peretti (1999) points out three things about judges and their roles in politics (cited in Cross, 2000, p.18). Peretti (1998) argues that "1) judge makes decisions based on their politics and not on some neutral principles of law; 2) that judges are not particularly independent of the influence of legislatures and hence must tailor their decisions to congressional politics; and 3) that this situation is a very good thing† (cited in Cross, 2000, p.18). Clearly, Peretti (1999) discloses that there should be a point in which the law-making body and the Judiciary could merge. The law states that there is a definite separation of power in all three branches, where the Judiciary acts as an interpreter of the law. Because of this, â€Å"Judges are independent from the police and the government, and cannot be told what to do, or have their decisions changed by ministers† (Directgov, n.d.). In reality, the opposite of expected outcomes persists. The manner of being one of the