Latest news with #judiciary
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Duty to uphold independence of judiciary — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 28 — Make no mistake that Malaysia has a duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary. It is not just that—it must guarantee such independence as enshrined in its Constitution and/or the law of the country. It is the duty of the government and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary. The above is the first principle of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from August 26 to September 6, 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of November 29,1985 and 40/146 of December 13, 1985. This year is the 40th anniversary of the principles. The second principle is the judiciary must decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. The third is the judiciary must have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and must have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law. Malaysia's duty to uphold the basic principles of independence of the judiciary does not impose on it the duty to extend the tenure of retiring judges notwithstanding their impeccable integrity. — Pexels pic The fourth is there must not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor must judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law. The fifth principle requires the judiciary to be entitled to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected. The sixth principle imposes a duty on each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions. There are 20 principles in all. I do not wish to state all 20 principles, but allow me to add to the above, on qualifications and selection of judges. Persons selected for judicial office must be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law. Any method of judicial selection must safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. In the selection of judges, there must be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, except that a requirement, that a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the country concerned, must not be considered discriminatory. Malaysia's duty to uphold the basic principles of independence of the judiciary does not impose on it the duty to extend the tenure of retiring judges notwithstanding their impeccable integrity. The duty is to select and appoint judges of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law, without improper motives and discrimination. *This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Trump basks in triumph as supreme court kicks away another guardrail
He strode into the White House briefing room feeling invincible. In his own telling, he had fixed the Middle East. He had made Nato pay up. He had pacified the heart of Africa. And now Napoleon Trump had once again just been crowned emperor by the US supreme court. 'We've had a big week,' Donald Trump, orange hair shimmering, blue tie drooping below the waist, mused from a lectern anointed with the presidential seal. 'We've had a lot of victories this week.' The highest court had just handed the president another win by curbing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies – though it left unresolved the issue of whether he can limit birthright citizenship. Unable to contain his glee, Trump came to talk to the press – something his predecessor Joe Biden rarely did – to goad the 'fake news' while basking in glory from the Maga-friendly media. The president hailed the court's decision as a 'monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law' and gloated – with some hyperbole – that 'there are people elated all over the country'. He looked forward to taking aim at targets such as birthright citizenship, sanctuary city funding and refugee resettlement. In the abstract, there is a reasonable debate to be had over how much power the judiciary should have to curb an elected leader's agenda. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, has described it as a 'bipartisan problem' that has plagued five different presidents. A decade ago Barack Obama expressed frustration when a district court temporarily blocked his executive actions on immigration. In the court's majority opinion, the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's contention that they were neglecting their duty to protect the people from government overreach. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. But context is everything. Trump has marginalised Congress, sued the media in an effort to chill free speech, assailed cultural institutions and universities and deployed the military against peaceful protesters. The courts have been leading the way in safeguarding democracy from his authoritarian impulses. Now they too are on the ropes. Asked by a reporter if the supreme court decision concentrates too much power in the White House, Trump insisted: 'The question is fine but it's the opposite. The constitution has been brought back.' Yet the supreme court that decided to make the strongman even stronger contains three Trump appointees and last year found that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for 'official acts' – in effect putting Trump above the law. The four criminal investigations that once dogged him now feel like ancient history. Trump was asked a question by a reporter from LindellTV, a news organisation founded by Mike Lindell, a conspiracy theorist and founder of MyPillow, about whether he would like to see a justice department investigation of the judges whose rulings allowed the cases to proceed against him while he was out of office. 'I love you,' Trump said in response to the question, adding: 'I hope so.' It has been exactly 12 months since he debated with Biden and discovered an opponent in chronic decline. Democrats panicked and imploded, Trump survived an assassination attempt and rode his good fortune all the way to the White House. It is small wonder that the 79-year-old now considers himself untouchable, acting with impunity at home and abroad, holding freewheeling press conferences like Friday's without fear of consequences. 'Illegal crossings at the border are at zero now,' a reporter said. Trump interjected: 'Zero! Does everyone hear that?' A cameraman in the briefing room shouted: 'Trump 2028!' Later Trump reiterated his claim that Iran's nuclear sites had been obliterated and lamented: 'We had some fake news for a little while – the same people that covered the Hunter Biden laptop was from Russia … I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon.' He also used the briefing to take a swipe at Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, for not lowering interest rates. 'We have a man who's not a smart man, and he probably has Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Later on Friday the White House would host leaders from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to sign a peace deal to end years of fighting. Trump cheerfully admitted: 'I'm a little bit out of my league in that one because I didn't know too much about it.' He also noted that the US would gain access to critical minerals in the region. Trump even ruminated on threats to his life, including proxy groups from Iran that may issue threats, and referenced the bullet that struck his ear last summer in an attempted assassination. He gets 'that throbbing feeling every once in a while', he said. 'What I do is a dangerous business. You know, I tell the story of the car companies and different people in different professions. You have race car drivers, as an example, one-tenth of 1% die. Bull riders, one-tenth of 1%. That's not a lot, but people die. When you're president, it's about 5%. If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. This is a very different profession.' As raised hands in the room clamoured for attention his political lizard brain spotted an opportunity to bash his predecessor. 'This is the opposite of Biden. Biden would take a half a question and he'd leave without answering it … You tell me when it gets boring, OK?'
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Liberal supreme court justices' dissents reveal concerns that the US faces a crisis
On Friday the conservative-dominated US supreme court handed down a series of important judgments on issues ranging from the power of the judiciary to religious rights in schools. Media attention generally focused on the wording of the rulings and their impact. But the court's liberal minority of just three justices penned dissenting opinions that were similarly potent, revealing the sharp divisions on America's top legal body and also showed their deep concern at the declining health of American civic society and the authoritarian bent of the Trump presidency. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered an acidic sermon against the court's 6-3 decision to end lower courts' practice of issuing nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders, reading her dissent directly from the bench in a move meant to highlight its importance. The decision is seen as limiting the power of judges to halt or slow presidential orders, even those whose constitutionality has not yet been tested, such as Trump's attempt to remove the right to automatic US citizenship for anyone born inside US borders. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' states Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.' As opinion season ends in the first months of Donald Trump's second presidency, the court's decisions have expanded the power of the presidency and limited the power of lower courts to block Trump's agenda. The opinion in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v Casa Inc, in which the court was silent on the underlying question about the constitutionality of Trump's executive order, nonetheless undermines the rule of law, Sotomayor said. Even though defending the order's legality is 'an impossible task' given the plain language of the 14th amendment, the court's opinion means each person must challenge the order individually in states that are not a party to the suit, unless class-action status is granted. In a concurring dissent, Jackson explained the burden it places on people to defend their rights in court. 'Today's ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,' Jackson's dissent states. 'This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law. In essence, the Court has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive action is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.' Jackson added ominously, the ruling was an 'existential threat to the rule of law'. Reading from the bench has historically been an uncommon act meant to emphasize profound disapproval of a justice to a ruling. The court's liberal wing has made it less rare lately, inveighing against profound legal changes wrought by the court's six-judge conservative bloc. Other decisions handed down on Friday also permit parents to opt their children out of classroom activities that depict LGBTQ+ characters in books (Mahmood v Taylor), and allow states to require age verification on pornographic web sites (Free Speech Coalition Inc, v Paxton), both decided on ideological lines. Age verification has already begun to drive porn website operators out of Texas, given a cost estimated at $40,000 for every 100,000 verifications, Kagan noted in her acerbic dissent. The Texas law creates a barrier between adults and first amendment-protected content that previous supreme court decisions on speech would not have permitted, she noted. Providing ID online is fundamentally different than flashing a driver's license at a bar. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion 'It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits – respecting speech many find repulsive – to a website operator, and then to … who knows?' she wrote. 'The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed.' The ruling granting a religious exemption will have a chilling effect on schools, which may strip classroom material of any reference to LGBTQ+ content rather than risk costly litigation, Sotomayor wrote in dissent. Her dissent highlights the deliberate work done by the Montgomery county school board to create an inclusive curriculum, adding 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' to its library in 2022. The children's book, one of five with LGBTQ+ characters, describes a same-sex couple's wedding announcement and plans. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,' she wrote. 'The Court's ruling, in effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards.' In three of the five decisions handed down on Friday, that conservative bloc had the majority. But in two cases the conservative bloc split: Kennedy v Braidwood Management, which reversed lower court rulings that declared an appointed board overseeing preventive care under the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, and FCC v Consumers' Research, which upheld the constitutionality of fees collected for a rural broadband program. Each of these cases split conservatives between those who support more expansive executive power – Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett – and others at war with the administrative state: Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas. But collectively, conservatives on the court have continued to upend longstanding precedent, while weakening the legal avenues of challengers to use the courts to defend their rights, the court's remaining liberal justices lament. 'The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival,' Sotomayor wrote in dissent on the birthright citizenship case. 'Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort.'
ABC News
5 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
US Supreme Court limits power of federal judges
In a highly significant ruling, the U-S Supreme Court has restricted the power of federal court judges to block presidential orders nationwide. The case stemmed from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants.
Wall Street Journal
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
The Supreme Court Kills ‘Universal' Injunctions
When the President abuses his executive power, the answer isn't for federal judges to abuse theirs. That was the message Friday from the Supreme Court, in a landmark 6-3 opinion ending routine 'universal injunctions.' This is a victory for President Trump in this case, but it will work in favor of future Democratic Presidents too. The ruling involves Mr. Trump's executive order that seeks to deny 'birthright citizenship' to certain children born in the U.S. The consensus view is that Mr. Trump's effort is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, and the Court reserves judgment on that question. Its opinion in Trump v. CASA is focused on whether lower-court judges hearing challenges to the policy from specific plaintiffs have the authority to block it nationwide for everyone.
