DQ RESPONSE 1
Okay so my understanding in the simplest form of judicial discretion is that it is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ability of judges to exercise discretion is an aspect of judicial independence. Judical discretion can be exercized where appropriate, judicial discretion allows a judge to decide a legal case or matter within a range of possible decisions.
However, where the exercise of discretion goes beyond the constraints that are set down by legislation, this is done through what is considered to be a binding precedent, but also by the constitution. The idea here is that the court may be abusing its discretion and undermining the rule of law. In that case, the decision of the court may be ultra vires, and may sometimes be characterized as judicial activism.
DQ RESPONSE 2
I think that in this discussion that it is very important to remember that the United States Constitution created three different branches of government. These consisted of the executive branch, the legislative branch and also the judicial. It was during this time that the doctrine of the separation of powers was created and it was then that they vested certain rights in each of these branches. At the same time that system of checks and balances came into play. What this does is it ensures that each branch of the government is able to maintain some degree of its own independence.
DQ RESPONSE 3
So I was thinking about the whole separation of power rules and what this really means. The idea is that it gives the judicial system some discretion to its judicial branches. A good example of this is that judges are guaranteed to be able to exercise discretion by use of the US Constitution. Judges can use this discretion to decide cases, and to make different common law based