Aktualne kierunki rozwoju władzy sądowniczej. Marsz Tysiąca Tóg rok później

Trump and his supporters brought sixty cases in several states challenging the election. Nearly one hundred judges found their claims had no basis. Although Trump’s lawyers could make false claims of fraud in the media, they could no lie or misrepresent in court because they could be found in contempt, sanctioned and even disbarred.

The decisions of the judges showed the strength and importance of judicial independence. They proved by their decisions that the Constitution and laws apply to everyone, including the President. By exercising their constitutional responsibility, judges demonstrated that they will not be ­influenced by politics or deterred by fear. They highlighted the importance of our judiciary to our faith in democratic principles.

It is not hysteria to say that the courts saved democracy from near collapse.

In the United States, our Constitution provides for a judicial system of Federal Courts in each state. District Courts have initial jurisdiction over prosecutions for federal crimes, civil disputes between citizens of different states, and claims of violation of the federal constitution. There are thirteen Circuit Courts, that hear appeals on questions of law from the district courts.

The United States Supreme Court decides whether to accept appeals from decisions of the circuit courts or state supreme courts. The Court hears from 100 to 150 of the 7000 cases it is asked to review each year.

In addition to the Federal Court system, each state has a court system with its own trial courts to deal with state law, as well as an appellate court structure, and a Supreme Court or highest appellate court at the top.

There are about 35,000 federal and state judges in the U.S. Federal judge have lifetime appointments. In states where judges are appointed, most are for long terms. In New Hampshire we are appointed until age 70. Judges are not afraid they will be punished for decisions they render because they cannot be removed from office except by impeachment for crimes or misconduct.

Courts in the United States protect individual rights. They are not expected to be arm of the administration. There is no pressure on judges from elected officials for their decisions, because their salaries cannot be reduced during their term, they cannot be demoted in position or status, and they cannot be subjected to unfair disciplinary measures.

It is very important for public trust, however, that judges adhere to high standards in their judicial acts and their personal lives. Those standards have been codified in codes of judicial conduct that have been adopted by Federal and state courts. The disciplinary processes fair, public and transparent.

In my international Rule of Law work I was often asked why people follow court decisions that are unpopular or opposed by the government. My response is that the public confidence in the courts gives judges a moral imperative.

Recently though, I wondered what would happen if the president promoted the same conspiracy theories and misinformation about judges, and made the same baseless claims about bias or unfairness of judges as he did about the election. How would the public react then?

Judges work hard to be impartial and objective even under the most trying circumstances.

Everyone, including judges, has personal views, and beliefs that may influence our thinking; and that is not a bad thing. But it is the responsibility of judges to ignore strongly held views when deciding cases; to adhere to the Constitution and laws.

It is unfortunate, and perhaps surprising, that it took an armed insurrection, an assault on our capitol building, and an attack on the legislative branch of government, to make people understand the fragility of our democracy.

Political leaders must be reminded that if they show disrespect for the judicial system, malign and demean judges, or accuse them of being political when they issue decisions unfavorable to the government, not only will their conduct likely lead to a loss of public respect and trust in the courts, but loss of trust in government itself.

There is no question that an independent judiciary must be accountable, however. They are accountable to the legislature by having to justify budget requests, to openly administer the funds they are given by the legislature, and to account for the way in which funds are spent.

Judges are accountable for their judicial and personal conduct, as well. Judges must hold themselves strictly to honorable conduct in the performance of their judicial duties and in their personal lives. Most states and the Federal judiciary have adopted the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct or similar codes. There are also many model codes like the Bangalore Code of Judicial Conduct and other codes available from independent international organizations. The codes provide universal standards, and demonstrate a firm commitment to ethical conduct and enforcement of norms.