Judicial independence is the linchpin of our modern court system, because without protection against retribution for appropriate but unpopular decisions, the judges are no more than pawns in a larger political game. Second guessing a judge’s verdict for the sole purpose of replacing that judge with one from his rival political party is a travesty to our system of government. This being said, there should be accountability for judges who flagrantly violate the laws they are sworn to uphold. There is sometimes a fine line between an unpopular decision and one that is inappropriate or potentially violates the law, therefore a judge who passes judgement solely to further his or his parties political agenda or personal beliefs has no purpose presiding over a court. …show more content…
Marshall, who was appointed Chief Justice by John Adams, a political rival of Jefferson, presided over the case against Burr who was indicted for treason, had his reputation destroyed, yet was never convicted. Jefferson decried Burr’s guilt even before the grand jury indictment. Marshall’s unpopular decisions were tarnished by his collaboration with other justices and his off-the-cuff decisions not based upon precedents.
In the U. S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, the court found for the Plaintiff that segregated schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment, however the court couched its findings in soft wording “permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions.” This ruling showed judicial independence but has been criticized for needing judicial accountability for allowing states to adhere to the judgement at their own