|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)|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Judiciary: government, court systems & judges
- 3 Citations needed
- 4 question
- 5 History of the Judiciary
- 6 Separation of Power
- 7 "In socialist law, the primary responsibility for interpreting the law belongs to the legislature"
- 8 Criticism
- 9 Name of this article
- 10 Rugby League
- 11 External links modified
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 126.96.36.199 (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)
- Ten years later, they were merged: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_21#Category:Court_systems_by_country. Just need to follow procedure and list things in the right forum... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 31 May 2016 (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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) what is judicial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (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 18.104.22.168 (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)
Name of this article
The lead of this article states "The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is...". The main category is Category:Judiciaries, but there is a bit of chaos in the subcategories (see Category:Judiciaries by country) - while most do say "Judiciary of Foo", there are exceptions such as "Judicial system of foo", "Judical branch of Foo government" and several others. This problem also affects the existing main articles, while most are in this format as well, again, few exceptions persist. While my proposed requested moves have not met with objections (or much support, they have been mostly ignored and thus passed, but this mainly indicates nobody watches those pages or associated wikiproject alerts pages, sigh) my proposal to standardize categories to "Judiciary of Foo" has not been met with consensus, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_20#Category:Judicial_system_of_Albania (through my other proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_21#Category:Court_systems_by_country has been accepted). Since there is a general consensus that standardization is good, but no consensus that the term "judiciary" is the best, I feel like we need to have a discussion about the term here (as this is more visible then the category renaming forum). I have no particular love for "judiciary" over "judicial system" or another term, I just chose this as it is the most popular already used name for articles and subcategories. I think we need to discuss what is the best term for THIS article, and then rename it (or not) and rename / standardize the categories and their main articles to whatever the name of this parent article is. Pinging participants of CfD discussion (@PanchoS, Peterkingiron, RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, and Laurel Lodged: , I'll leave a notice on WT:LAW in few minutes too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agree that there must to a consistent standard. Am happy to go with "Judiciary of Foo" as the most popular choice and the one that is understood across diverse jurisdictions. Perhaps also mandate scoping notes saying that it is more than just judges but also includes courts and sometimes other entities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree. When it comes to categories we may need to be more precise. Judiciary covers not only judges, but people holding similar posts with slightly different titles, including in UK: chairmen of tribunals, of Quarter Sessions, Lord Justices of Appeal, etc. The post formerly known as Registrar is now deputy judge. Judicial system is rather wider, including the courts in which the judges sit and the surrounding administrative apparatus of the courts. I see no objection to the article remaining as it is, but it may need slight adjustment to take account of the distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Judiciary is a term used in Rugby League in Australia to describe arbitration involving players in amateur and professional competitions that are accused of on-field offenses contrary to the Laws of Rugby League. Judiciary can also involve disciplinary procedures for accusations that are up-held. Factrules (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Judiciary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727230318/http://www.law.syr.edu/Pdfs/0Intro%20Court%20System.pdf to http://www.law.syr.edu/Pdfs/0Intro%20Court%20System.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.