The way to achieve this impartiality – to free judges to decide cases based on what the law actually requires, and on nothing else – is to ensure that the judiciary is independent, or, put differently, not subject to reprisals for decisions on the bench.
But judicial independence is not an absolute or singular value defining our courts. The principle of judicial restraint is equally important – and it is inextricably linked to judicial independence. At one level, the tension between the two seems inescapable. But there is an important sense in which an independent judiciary and judicial restraint are flip sides of the same coin. Both aim to minimize the influence of extraneous factors on judicial decision-making. A judge must not decide a case with an eye toward public approbation, because whether a particular result is popular is irrelevant to whether it is legally sound. In the same way, a judge must not consult
Marbury v. Madison is essential because it established the power of judicial review for the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts concerning the Constitution and eventually for parallel state courts for state constitutions.
Brainliest Please
Answer:
eli whitney
Explanation:
he was considered to be the father of mass production
I am almost 100% sure that it is activist leader.
<span>
</span>minority party is the term that is used when referring to the political part with the fewest members in the senate
