In a nutshell, the Trump administration is preparing to rollback the rule in America’s courts, with some major consequences for the public.
Read moreThe Trump administration, led by President Donald Trump, has unveiled an ambitious strategy to roll-back the American court system by reducing its powers.
It aims to eliminate most judgeships and remove most public interest judges, including those appointed by the president, while allowing the judiciary to act more independently.
But this strategy will not only have significant consequences for US courts, but also for the rule we take for granted as a country.
It has been suggested that by eliminating judgeships, the government could have removed public trust in our judicial system, since the courts are supposed to serve as an alternative to a judge who is corrupt, and whose impartiality and impartiality are undermined by a political appointee.
The Trump Administration argues that the elimination of judgeships will reduce the need for judges and make it easier to prosecute cases against those who have broken the law.
The problem with this argument is that judges are not “elected” by the public, they are appointed by elected officials, and if elected officials appoint corrupt judges, the system becomes a corrupt system.
The US Constitution is clear on this point: “No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
The Trump government is not the first to propose cutting back on the rule, and it is not likely to be the last.
But what has not been discussed is that there are many other parts of the American judicial system that are at risk.
These include the separation of powers and judicial independence, the rule against judicial activism, and judicial review.
The rules governing judicial review are also at risk in the Trump Administration’s plans.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel recently released a report that noted that there is a growing problem in the US of judicial activism: “The use of judicial review is often seen as a way to challenge the outcome of an adversarial court proceeding, but this may actually undermine the effectiveness of the adversarial process.”
Judicial activists are able to make important rulings that are not in line with the official policy of the government.
They are able, for example, to overturn a court decision that would otherwise be upheld.
For example, the US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the President’s order banning refugees from Iraq, despite his claims that the policy was based on religious considerations.
This is because judges can be “intervening” in legal proceedings in a way that is in line, in the opinion of some legal experts, with the Trump government’s official policy.
The idea of “interventions” in the legal process is not new, and courts have used this tactic for decades.
But the Trump presidency is proposing to turn judicial review into a “free-for-all” where the government can decide whether or not a particular case should proceed.
In other words, the administration is proposing that courts will be free to “interject themselves” in every legal decision, without giving any thought to the impact of their decisions on the public interest.
The United States is not alone in this approach.
Canada, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand have all taken similar steps to eliminate the rule.
In recent months, the United Nations has also called for an end to judicial activism in the courts.
The United States has taken no steps towards reversing this trend.
The President of the United States, Donald Trump (C), is accompanied by his wife Melania Trump, left, and Ivanka Trump, right, as they arrive at Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, January 17, 2021.
Source: Reuters / Nick UtThe Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the plan.
The White House said the plan would cut back on “legislative appointments” in particular.
According a press release, the President “will remove from office any judicial nominee who has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.”
In a separate statement, the White House also stated that judges would no longer be able to “authorize any court action without first receiving the express approval of the Court”.
Trump’s team has also proposed to “limit or eliminate judicial review”, and to “reinstitute the principle of judicial independence”.
But while the Trump campaign is trying to dismantle the rule for judges, they have not yet proposed to end the ability of judges to be involved in legal matters.
This will require a significant shift in the rules that govern how the judiciary operates, and in the role that judges play in the public sphere.
Judicial independence means that judges have a responsibility to exercise their discretion in cases that are important to them.
But they should also be free not to