The powers of the judiciary are limited subject to a number of constitutional provisions. This section seeks to explain the various judicial constrains and the effects thereof.
Political restraints-
In the event that a decision is deemed to be wrong or to a large extent unconstitutional, the its expected that there are quite some remedies that limit the power of the judiciary on that particular matter. Some of the remedies include:
Bringing an alternative case which is believed to have a higher probability of alternative treatment
Amending the sections of the constitutions such as 11th,14th ,16th and even 26th amendments
The executive also have the option of appointing a judge who would be in agreement with them.
In the event that a judge is deemed to have replaced his will with the constitution, then he could be impeached. These are some of the remedies that are available to the other branches of the executive so as to ensure that the powers of the judiciary are not abused and are limited.
Constitutional and prudential limits
A constitutional limit is that which is imposed by the constitution e.g. article three that limits such powers to cases as well as controversies. Prudential limits on the other hand are imposed by the judges on themselves depending on what they consider as prudent powers.
Additionally, certain provisions of the constitution may be unenforceable judicially and this definitely limits the judicial [powers of the judges. An example of a legal case was that involving Baker v. Carr. In this case, non-justiciability of a political function was primarily a function of power separation, and if another branch of the government has a final authority on a matter presented, then it is unjusticiable (Whitten,2009).
Standing
In this rule of access, the powers of the judiciary are limited by the standing clause that explains that there has to be an injury in fact, and a legal injury for that matter. In the case of Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, the endangered species act states that anyone can sue but the judges ruled that this did not take away the requirement for the injury in fact. Since no one could prove that they would actually suffer any injury, the only injury being that they would not be able to enjoy endangered species, then the case was dismissed on these grounds.
Other issues that limit the powers of judges would include causation; the issue forming the suit must have been caused by an action or omission on the part of the defendant. Redress ability is another issue that has to be considered in determining the limitations of judicial powers. As long as a suit is not redress able, then it’s expected that the judges cannot offer any remedy on the same.
Briefly comment on whether the judiciary is today the least dangerous branch or an imperial judiciary
Take the political limitations for instance, the constitution allows for many loopholes in which the judiciary can be intimidated, judges impeached as well as many other actions. These work to ensure that the judiciary works strictly within the constitutional guidelines, and cannot extend its powers at will. Additionally, the judiciary’s powers are mostly interfered with by the executive, who have had significant influence on its affairs for a long time.
References
The US constitution, judicial department. Adapted from: https:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-9-4.pdf
Whitten, R.U (2009). Separation of Powers Restrictions on Judicial Rulemaking- A case study. Adapted from: http://www. mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/maine/pdf//vol40_me_l_rev_41.pdf
