Judges Must Make Law

INTRODUCTION: Congress as the Supreme Congress has unrestricted legislative power and the law it passes through can not be canceled by the court. The role of judges in the legislation enacted by Congress is not to judge whether they are good or bad, but to explain and apply. However, there is evidence that they deviate from the "real role" and instead tend to enact legislation in their own way. Therefore, the true role of the judge in any legal system is still a question that many people are questioning.

Then, how does the judge enact legislation? First of all, they have to decide the truth of the incident. Then they apply the laws that the former judges decided when considering similar facts. When they make a decision, they prepare a written decision on which party will win. You have connected with the judge in the past. But if the facts are different, they can make a new law. The court's ruling may be overturned by a ruling that rape marriage is a crime that overturns the legal principles that have existed for centuries, like R v R (1991) (Elliott & Quinn 1996). (Elliot & Quinn 1996: 10). This position is considered unrealistic today. If Blackstone implies its correctness, many cases in the High Court will not appear in court.

Common loans are sometimes called the "judge" law. It includes the legal regulation coming from the judicial written decision of the decision to decide upon litigation (litigation). Judges have the authority to make these decisions according to the constitution and rules. When a judge decides the case and makes a written decision, that decision will be a precedent for future litigation. In short, you need to be familiar with all these aspects of the law so that you can protect animals to the utmost. A better understanding of the current laws (including how they are implemented) will lead to an understanding of which laws need to be changed in order to maximally protect animals .

Some judges have developed activist philosophy to use substitutes to achieve social and political change. Other judges exercise their detained philosophy and judges must strictly interpret the law, not trying to enact new laws. Every judge, regardless of philosophy, develops its own way to read the Constitution. Some judicial philosophies tend to be consistent with certain political views. For example, most rigid constructualists are also advocates of judicial detention, but not all. Likewise, many supporters of judicial detention follow the principle of original intention. However, these views do not necessarily overlap. Therefore, judicial philosophy differs from political ideology