To what extent are judges better guardians of rights and civil liberties than Parliament or the executive? - Edexcel - A-Level Politics - Question 4 - 2016 - Paper 2

Judges are independent of both Parliament and the executive. This independence allows them to act without fear of repercussion or influence from political factions, ensuring impartiality when protecting individual rights. Judges can therefore serve as unbiased protectors of civil liberties.

Judges are designed to be politically neutral, whereas Parliament may be influenced by party politics and public opinion. This bias can sway legislative priorities, potentially compromising the protection of individual rights. Judges, through their role, can focus solely on the law.

Nevertheless, there are arguments supporting the view that Parliament or the executive can be better guardians of rights. For instance, legislative bodies can create laws that reflect the will of the people. Some critics argue that judges may demonstrate political biases despite their intended neutrality.

Parliament is often viewed as the ultimate guardian of rights due to its ability to enact and amend laws actively. Legal frameworks like the Human Rights Act require parliamentary approval, showcasing that legislators play a crucial role in shaping legal protections.

Judges rely on case law to guide their decisions, but this can sometimes lead to inconsistencies or limitations. In contrast, Parliament can address grievances more directly and swiftly, adapting laws in response to contemporary issues and public sentiment.