Talk:Judiciary

This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wasn't it

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)

[(I have to Right a short story on the 3 governmental branches) Seems like an amatuer question but i assure you it is not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smillar (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 January 2006

‘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))[reply]

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 69.23.75.191 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What type of cases does this branch hear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.205.67 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is judicial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.0.35 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 99.225.226.234 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 72.130.55.225 (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Judiciary is a term used in

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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than *what*?

Wikipedia =/= USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.186.87.231 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've changed the heading, added hatnotes, and also added a discussion topic on Talk:Judicial system of Japan re naming of other articles. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just redid the lead section, making it more of a summary. I split it in a summary and a separate heading "Definition". I also added a source and plan on adding some more, also making minor edits to make it more objective.

I will expand "History" by making it larger, focussing (mainly) on Roman Law and the effects throughout the centuries, and also on the Enlightenment.

If there are sources or suggestions you want to make, please do!

I would suggest someone expand the parts about judiciary in different countries, because just those three don't give a good overview of the judiciary.

SlotOGoldenGoose (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I have added the parts about Roman and Medieval law already. I know they are kind of flawed already because they mainly focus on European legal history, so if anyone would like to add in the other parts of the world, that would be awesome.

The other parts of legal history will follow as soon as possible. SlotOGoldenGoose (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are three types of judiciary in South Sudan ? 197.231.239.65 (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]