US Suprem Law Court

[padisha emperor]

Don't you think that the way of nomination of the members of the US Suprem Law Court is not really good ?

I explain : They are nominated by the president, aren't they ?
So, it's a major interference between the powers, executive and judiciary.

It's not good for the good health of democracy that the Chief of State can say who will be member of this Law Court.

Because after, the President can have a Law Court, which will follow his decision, without partiality. It's a risk.

Montesquieu said that it should be better with a separation of the powers.
But here, the executive control the judiciary power.

 

[USViking]

Don't you think that the way of nomination of the members of the US Suprem Law Court is not really good ?

I explain : They are nominated by the president, aren't they ?
So, it's a major interference between the powers, executive and judiciary.

It's not good for the good health of democracy that the Chief of State can say who will be member of this Law Court.

Because after, the President can have a Law Court, which will follow his decision, without partiality. It's a risk.

Montesquieu said that it should be better with a separation of the powers.
But here, the executive control the judiciary power.

How are judiciary appointments made in France?

In the US, the legislative branch must approve
the executive nominations, so two branches
of government are included in the hiring process.

And the culture and psychology of the Federal
judges is such that they do not merely rubber
stamp any party's agenda, and they are most
certainly not legally bound to, so I feel the
separation is a real one.

 

[William Joyce]

It's in the Constitution. That is in most instances good enough for me. And I agree that the president's politics have not often had much influence over the judge... that's the advantage of life tenure. If anything, Republican presidents have nominated a lot of closet liberals. I get the sense Roberts won't be like that.

The separation of powers is one Constitutional function that has managed to survive, and is probably way underrated as a nation-saver.

It's federalism that got trampled, and I'd like to see that return, myself.

 

[padisha emperor]

in France, the President of the Republic names 3 persons in the "Conseil Constitutionnel" - Constitutionnal law court - , so do the president of the Assemblée Nationale and the President of the Senat, the 2 legislative chambers.
So, 9 memebrs named by executive and legislative.
So here it's like for the Suprem Court, and the named persons are very competent persons in this domain.

But the US Suprem Law Court is also like the french "Cour de Cassation", the suprem court for the judiciary order (civil, penal, social, trade...), and several other kind of law courts.

So, it's a concentration of powers, named by political instances, the US Suprem Court is like the reunion of several main law court, in one place, with 9 judges.

Tha's quite disturbing.

 

[USViking]

in France, the President of the Republic names 3 persons in the "Conseil Constitutionnel" - Constitutionnal law court - , so do the president of the Assemblée Nationale and the President of the Senat, the 2 legislative chambers.
So, 9 memebrs named by executive and legislative.
So here it's like for the Suprem Court, and the named persons are very competent persons in this domain.

But the US Suprem Law Court is also like the french "Cour de Cassation", the suprem court for the judiciary order (civil, penal, social, trade...), and several other kind of law courts.

So, it's a concentration of powers, named by political instances, the US Suprem Court is like the reunion of several main law court, in one place, with 9 judges.

Tha's quite disturbing.

So France has different courts for different
areas of law from the lowest to the highest levels?

In the US such divisions are maintained I think
only at the municipal level; I should know more here.

The French system would seem to allow a
greater degree of specialization among judges,
and sounds like a good system.

May judges rule against legislation as they
do in the US?

Although the US system forces judges to
competence in all areas of law, and although
the Appellate and especially Supreme Courts
have great power, the system has performed
tolerably well from the beginning.

There have always been sizeable factions
who feel the courts have too much power
to usurp legislative functions.

A seldom if ever used provision of the Constitution
allows Congress to limit the Courts' jurisdiction.
This is a potential decisive check on their power.

 

[padisha emperor]

So France has different courts for different
areas of law from the lowest to the highest levels?

In the US such divisions are maintained I think
only at the municipal level; I should know more here.

The French system would seem to allow a
greater degree of specialization among judges,
and sounds like a good system.

May judges rule against legislation as they
do in the US?

Although the US system forces judges to
competence in all areas of law, and although
the Appellate and especially Supreme Courts
have great power, the system has performed
tolerably well from the beginning.

There have always been sizeable factions
who feel the courts have too much power
to usurp legislative functions.

A seldom if ever used provision of the Constitution
allows Congress to limit the Courts' jurisdiction.
This is a potential decisive check on their power.

The judges in France, for the "private laws" (Jus privatum in latin), are fromed in the "Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature", ENM (national school of magistrature).
but there is several differents law courts, then not the same kind of affairs, and not the same laws* : there is COurts of Trade, Courts for Children, COurts of police, for the minor penal infraction, correctional courts, for the medium penal infraction (offences), and the Cour d'Assises, for the crimes.
there is several civil law courts, social courts.......

*not the same laws : Code civil, code penal, code du commerce....in france the laws are in several codes, in articles...there is a lot of law codes.

there is the first degree : all the courts.
Then, the second degree, the courts of appeal. here again, all the sorts.

and finally, at the top of the pyramid, the Cour de Cassation (suprem court of appeal), for all the "Jus privatum".

The judgements are given by 3 judges, except for the small cases.
And for the main cases, there is several kind of assembly, the major cases are often the judgement of the Cour de cassation, in the plenary assembly (all the judges of the Cour de Cassation).

there is ONE COur de Cassation, in Paris. There is six chambers : 3 civil chambers, one trade, one social, one criminal (for the penal cases)

there is 35 Courts of appeal, their territorial competence are often the old division under the Ancien Regime (before the Revolution of 1789), with the Parliaments, juridictions of the Ancien Regime. (in Aix en Provence there is one Court of appeal, with a teritorial competence for 4 about the 6 departements of the region Provence (Bouches du Rhône, Var, Alpes Maritimes, Alpes de Haute Provence).

So, you go to the law court interested by your case (civil, penal, social........), then, you can go to the COurt of Appeal, and then, you can go to the Cour de Cassation. and here it's over (you can go to the European HUman Right court, if it's concerning the human rights)
The judges can ask the COurt of Justice of the European Communities, in the EU, to resolve the case.


Near the "jus privatum" order, the "ordre judiciaire", there is in France the "jus publicum".
The jus publicum contain the administrative laws, the contitutionnal laws, the fundamental liberties,the public finances, the international laws, the european communities laws.

For the constitutionnal laws : the Constitutionnal Council is the law court. (but the people cannot go to it, only 60 deputies, or 60 senators, or the president of Republic, of Senate, of National assembly, or prime minister, can take a case to the CC).

The administraitve order is organized like the private order : administrative law courts, administrative courts of appeal, and at the top, the State Council : "Conseil d'Etat". (it's like the Cour de Cassation for the administrative cases)

the administrative laws solve the problem bewteen the State - french State, the regions, the departements, the cities, and all the public persons in the french laws - and the people.


and bewteen the 2 order - judiciary and administrative - there is the "Tribunal des conflits", the COnflicts law court : its job is that there is no interference between the 2 orders. Sometimes, a case is in front of a civil law court, but it should be in front of an administrative law court. the, the tribunal des COnflits has to solve the problem.

So the Cour de Cassation and the Conseil d'Etat are suprem law court, but because they're at the top of the pyramids.



The judges of the administrative orders came often from the ENA, the National school of administration.


So, the judges are specialized, inot each orders, then they know really good their competences, and their laws.