The Political Dynamics of Justice Reform in The U.S.

and investors have confidence to invest in the economy of a nation who has a strong
and stable judiciary that is independent of interference. The judiciary's role in deciding
the validity of presidential and parliamentary elections also necessitates independence
of the judiciary.
Disadvantages
The disadvantages of having a judiciary that is seemingly too independent include
possible abuse of power by judges. Self-interest, ideological dedication and even
corruption may influence the decisions of judges without any checks and balances in
place to prevent this abuse of power if the judiciary is completely independent. The
relationship between the judiciary and the executive is a complex series of
dependencies and interdependencies which counter-check each other and must be
carefully balanced. One cannot be too independent of the other. Furthermore, judicial
support of the executive is not as negative as it seems as the executive is the branch of
government with the greatest claim to democratic legitimacy. If the judiciary and
executive are constantly feuding, no government can function well.
Also, an extremely independent judiciary would lack judicial accountability, which is the
duty of a public decision-maker to explain and justify a decision and to make
amendments where a decision causes injustice or problems. Judges are not required to
give an entire account of their rationale behind decisions, and are shielded against
public scrutiny and protected from legal repercussions. However judicial accountability
can reinforce judicial independence as it could show that judges have proper reasons
and rationales for arriving at a particular decision. While judges are not democratically
accountable to the people, the key is for judges to achieve equilibrium between the two
to ensure that justice is upheld.
Economic Basis
Constitutional economics studies issues such as the proper distribution of national
wealth including government spending on the judiciary. In transitional and developing
countries, spending on the judiciary may be controlled by the executive. This
undermines the principle of judicial independence because it creates a financial
dependence of the judiciary on the executive. It is important to distinguish between two
methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and privileges)
being the most dangerous, and private. State corruption of the judiciary can impede the
ability of businesses to optimally facilitate the growth and development of a market
economy.
In some countries, the constitution also prohibits the legislative branch from reducing
salaries of sitting judges.
Page 48 of 262