The takeaway from Roberts» earlier remarks seems to be his stark linkage
between judicial independence (yes, an old theme) and the First Amendment: namely, that a weakened judiciary (or even a judiciary with less than life tenure) will be less able to safeguard the First Amendment.
Legal Times correspondent Tony Mauro, who blogged live from the speech, noted that the connection
between judicial independence and constitutional safeguards has been made before, «but not in such a direct way.»
Not exact matches
In the last years, EU have faced several cases of countries with
judicial independence issues and I am wondering if there is a connection
between party in power ideology and
judicial independence / rule of law issues.
The majority's strong distinction
between matters of
judicial independence that might justify the court requiring such expenditures, and matters of
independence of the bar (which arguably includes access to lawyers), which would not.
But because of the blurred line
between law, policy and morality, the centrality of
judicial independence, and the unique ability of judges to speak to certain moral and political issues, we must not label every obiter comment by a judge as misconduct.
As lawyer Abdullah Khalil writes in Judges and Political Reform in Egypt, since its creation in 1875, the niyaba «has been trapped
between the executive and the
judicial authority and has lacked real
independence from the Ministry of Justice.»
Historically, the requirement of
judicial independence developed to demarcate the fundamental division
between the judiciary and the executive.