The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a vibrant democracy. The problem comes when healthy criticism is replaced with more destructive intimidation and sanctions.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a vibrant democracy.
Judges must be free from political intervention or intimidation.
I'm a judge. It seemed to me that it was critical to try to take action to stem the criticism and help people understand that in the constitutional framework, it's terribly important not to have a system of retaliation against decisions people don't like.
Democracy demands that judges confine themselves to a narrow sphere of influence - that is why the late Alexander Bickel called the judiciary the 'Least Dangerous Branch.' In a world governed by a proper conception of their role, judges don't play at being legislators - they leave that job to our elected representatives.
But one way or another, judges perform a very vital function in our society. They have a risky job and they are entitled to security.
I remain mindful that the role of a judge is a limited one and that judges can't solve every problem. But at the same time, judges play a crucial role in safeguarding liberty and protecting the rights of all citizens.
Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.
In a democracy, you need to have a strong judicial system. You need freedom of speech, you need art, and you need a free press.
Violence against judges and threats of violence against Judges is on the rise and it is no laughing matter. When leaders attempt to rationalize this violence, it only makes the problem worse.
I always say the strength of democracy lies in criticism. If there is no criticism, that means there is no democracy. And if you want to grow, you must invite criticism. And I want to grow; I want to invite criticism.
No opposing quotes found.