Photo AI
Question 4
To what extent are judges better guardians of rights and civil liberties than Parliament or the executive?
Step 1
Answer
Judges possess the authority to interpret the law and ensure that it is applied uniformly. This role highlights the superiority of rules over individual whims. The judiciary, through instruments like the Human Rights Act, safeguards rights by providing a legal framework that transcends political influence.
Step 2
Answer
Judges operate independently from Parliament and the executive, allowing them to make decisions free from political pressure. This independence enables them to protect individual rights, particularly in situations where there may be an overwhelming state interest that compromises civil liberties.
Step 3
Answer
Critics argue that Parliament is the ultimate guardian of rights, as it is responsible for the creation of laws. While judges enforce laws, Parliament has the authority to shape them. Furthermore, mechanisms like Judicial Review require Parliament's approval, showcasing their foundational role in human rights protection.
Step 4
Answer
Judges have faced accusations of political bias, raising concerns about their impartiality. Critics argue that judges may lean towards conservative values or government interests, suggesting that the judiciary does not always uphold civil liberties objectively.
Step 5
Answer
Ultimately, the extent to which judges are better guardians of rights than Parliament or the executive is a nuanced debate. While judges play a crucial role in safeguarding civil liberties, the legislative framework and accountability mechanisms in Parliament are equally vital for protecting individual rights. Both the judiciary and Parliament need to function collaboratively to effectively uphold rights and liberties.
Report Improved Results
Recommend to friends
Students Supported
Questions answered