|A summary of this article appears in Law.|
|Judiciary has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
Wasn't it Justinian that got rid of all the conflicting decisions and tried to standardize legal interpretation (which is why Napoleon loved him so much)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex756 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 April 2003
I modified the article with respect to civil law. It was claim that civil law judges are not supposed to interpret the law. In fact, civil law judges are supposed to interpret existing statute law – but not create new law. David.Monniaux 17:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Where did the name "judiciary" come from?
*[(I have to Right a short story on the 3 governmental branches)
‘The Sovereign power to make law within the UK lies with Parliament, but it is case law that creates and refines the law through judicial decisions.’
Explain the legislative function of Parliament and the role of the judiciary in the law-making process, and comment on the validity of the above statement.
WOULD ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT (Olebhia 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC))
If you're doing homework on the judicial branch and are getting frustrated, just remember that the judicial branch is fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Judiciary: government, court systems & judges
I'm no lawyer, but the categories Category:Judiciaries and Category:Court systems by country look like a duplicated mess to me. Someone easily confused (?) might have expected to find a more logical structure, like: branches of national government; court systems; and judges. I've made a few tweaks at the moment, and I'm wondering about proposing the merger of court systems into judiciaries to help sort out the differences between the two. Any views??--Mereda 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seven years later, it still looks like a duplicated mess to me too. Will take some time to work on it. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This article desperately needs some citations to reliable sources.
I made a few minor edits and deleted one sentence which, although partially correct, was unsourced. Famspear 21:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What type of cases does this branch hear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) what is judicial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
History of the Judiciary
This article needs an expanded history. Just focusing on France, and at that just on the revolutionary period, is not a thorough enough background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Separation of Power
In a law class I took I learned that the following branches of government have the following powers.
Executive Branch = Law Enforcement
Judicial Branch = Interpretation of Law
Legislative Branch = Creation of Law
Courts can not enforce law because that would practically turn them into a monarchy if they can both interpret and enforce laws. They can practically make any arbitrary decision they want. That's why the president can pardon crimes against the United States, (s)he is the one in charge of enforcing laws and can decide not to enforce a law if s/he chooses but if she/he decides to abuse his/her powers in that respect Congress can impeach him/her. Congress can't directly enforce laws either (except for impeachment), the people would then have to technically elect another president to enforce the laws. In this manner each branch of government checks and balances each other, no one branch (not even congress) can turn into a monarchy.
What I remember in a law course I took was that there is an example or two, throughout the entire history of the U.S., of the supreme court making a ruling (I believe against the president?) and the ruling not being enforced because the executive branch decided not to enforced it. Can anyone retrieve this example because I can't remember it, it's been a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not true for the USSR where the supreme body to interpret the law was supreme court. Maybe this is how it is in Chine but this definitely does not reflect how it was in the USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuclanus (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I added a mention of an interested Facebook page where we can discuss the SCOTUS, how the decide cases, etc. It's pretty interesting. A Facebook friend of mine started it and it has a lot of interesting interviews with the Justices and such. ~~ iMatti ~~ (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)