The American Constitution was influenced by European thinkers Charles-Louis de Montesquieu and John Locke. The founders of the American Constitution regarded judicial independence as an important principle for the founding of the United States. In the view of alexander hamilton and others, only when the judicial department does not obey the legislative and administrative departments can it safeguard justice and protect citizens' lives, property and freedom. The founders of the United States attached so much importance to judicial independence because George III forced the judges in the colonies to obey his will and made his tyrannical policies unimpeded. After the overthrow of the British Empire, the founders of the United States wrote judicial independence into the Constitution, hoping to use the judiciary to restrain the executive and legislative departments and prevent them from abusing their power. The provisions of the American Constitution on justice are quite concise. After the first chapter entrusts the legislative power to Congress and the second chapter entrusts the executive power to the President, the third chapter entrusts the judicial power to the Federal Supreme Court and its subordinate courts, and stipulates the term of office, salary and salary of judges, the scope of judicial power and so on. In addition to the third chapter devoted to the judiciary, chapters I and II also contain a few provisions on the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature and between the judiciary and the administration. These provisions mainly include: 1. Federal judicial power belongs to the Federal Supreme Court and several lower courts established by Congress. As long as judges behave correctly, they can serve for life and get paid. No salary reduction is allowed during the term of office (Chapter III, Section 1 of the US Constitution). Giving the Supreme Court judicial power, at least in words, clarifies the difference between the judiciary and the legislative and administrative departments, and does not allow Congress and the President to interfere in the judicial field. In this way, the founders of the United States used the first three chapters of the Constitution to specify the ownership of legislative power, executive power and judicial power respectively, and made clear the government structure of separation of the three powers. After the judicial power was granted to the court, the constitution immediately talked about trivial issues such as the term of office and salary of judges. This arrangement seems puzzling at first glance, but it is actually based on the fundamental consideration of safeguarding judicial independence. In the colonial era, George III could decide the term and salary of judges at will, which largely determined the obedience of judges to the administrative department. Therefore, in the view of the founders of the constitution, the term of office and salary of judges constitute the fundamental problem of judicial independence. By stipulating the term of office of judges and giving them stable and generous salaries, the Constitution tries to prevent judges from succumbing to external pressure in handling cases in order to keep their positions and salaries, which is not independent and unfair.
Judges of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and formally appointed by the President after being examined and approved by the Senate (Article 2, Paragraph 2, Chapter II of the US Constitution). This provision embodies the intention of the founders of the Constitution to require the three branches of administration, legislation and judicature to be relatively independent and at the same time restrict each other. The source of federal judges is controlled by the executive and legislative departments, so that the executive and legislative departments can control the ideology of the judicial department to a certain extent and coordinate their work with each other, while preventing incompetent personnel from mastering judicial power. This provision also shows that federal judges are not elected by the people. This arrangement, like the provision that judges can serve for life, is for the independence and justice of judicial activities. If a judge is elected by the people, he will certainly consider the interests and attitudes of his voters when deciding a case. If he doesn't have tenure, he should consciously or unconsciously take care of the interests of his voters in order to be re-elected. It is stipulated that judges are appointed by the president, approved by the Senate, and enjoy life tenure and fixed salary, which can eliminate the worries of judges and safeguard judicial independence. Because the president and senator are elected by the people, their appointment and recognition of federal judges basically belongs to the people's X procedure.
All cases of impeaching government officials (including presidents, vice presidents or federal judges) must be handled by Congress, not the judiciary. Impeachment cases must be initiated by the House of Representatives (Article 5, paragraph 2, Chapter 1 of the US Constitution) and tried by the Senate (Article 6, paragraph 3, Chapter 1 of the US Constitution). Impeachment must be based on treason, bribery, or various other felonies and misdemeanors (Chapter II, Section IV of the US Constitution).
(1) Appointment and removal of judges In the judicial system of any country, how to appoint and remove judges is a key issue. In American political practice, the appointment of judges more reflects the restriction of the executive and legislative departments on the judicial department; The removal of judges more reflects the independence of the judicial department relative to the executive and legislative departments. As mentioned above, the judges of the federal courts in the United States must be nominated by the President, examined and approved by the Senate, and then formally appointed by the President (Article 2, Paragraph 2, Chapter II of the Constitution of the United States). In American history, the president's power to appoint judges has always been regarded by the administrative department as an important means to control the judicial department. When appointing judges (especially Supreme Court judges), almost all American presidents are inclined to their own party, party member, or at least those who are close to them ideologically. For example, among the current Supreme Court judges, * * * and party member are appointed by * * * and the party chairman, while members of the People's Party are appointed by the party chairman. Although excessively favoring party members will lead to criticism from opposition parties, this practice has been accepted by all parties in the United States, and Congress rarely opposes presidential nomination and appointment of judges. In American history, it is not uncommon for the president to take the initiative to intervene in the judicial department by using his appointment of judges. Because the US Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court judges, in theory, the president can appoint countless new judges to the Supreme Court, thus making the Supreme Court a bastion of his party. An extreme example comes from franklin roosevelt. When his "New Deal" was attacked by the Supreme Court in several consecutive cases, Roosevelt tried to appoint six new judges to the Supreme Court, hoping to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court from nine to 15, so that the people who supported the New Deal were in the majority. As a result of the contest between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court changed its attitude and turned to support the "New Deal". Roosevelt therefore gave up his plan to appoint a new judge. From the middle of19th century to the present, the number of judges in the US Supreme Court has been limited to nine. Only when the current judges abdicate due to old age or death can an equal number of new judges join. But from the above example, this fait accompli is not monolithic. If the power to appoint judges is mainly in the hands of the administrative department, then the power to recall judges is in the hands of the legislative department. As mentioned above, the impeachment power of federal judges belongs to Congress (Article 5, Section 2, Chapter 1 of the US Constitution). The impeachment of a judge of the House of Representatives must be because he has committed or is suspected of committing treason, bribery or other felonies and misdemeanors (Chapter II, Section IV of the US Constitution). For example, henry clay, a federal judge, was impeached by Congress in 1983 for taking bribes and evading taxes. The purpose of impeachment is that judges are unwilling to resign voluntarily, so impeachment procedures are needed to deprive them of their posts. Because there are such strict requirements for impeachment, and because the Constitution clearly stipulates that federal judges can serve for life as long as they behave properly (Chapter III, Section 1 of the US Constitution), it is impossible for Congress to restrict the specific judicial activities of judges through impeachment. Impeachment initiated by the House of Representatives must be passed by a majority vote, and if the Senate finds the impeached person guilty, it must also be passed by two-thirds of the members present (Article 6, Section 3, Chapter 1 of the US Constitution). These strict procedures ensure that although Congress has the right to dismiss judges who violate the law, it cannot interfere with the normal administration of justice. So generally speaking, although the president tries to influence the political inclination of the court when appointing judges, judges will basically not lose their positions or salaries after taking office. There is a famous saying in American judicial circles that when dwight david eisenhower looked back on his presidency, he thought that the two biggest mistakes he made were the appointment of two Supreme Court judges who had always disagreed with him since he took office. But even so, the president (or Congress) can do nothing about the judges. Because judges can be relatively independent of the legislative and administrative departments, they should be able to make a fair judgment when trying cases.
(2) Since the judges who supervise the quality of judicial activities are not elected by the people, they are not responsible to the voters, and it is hard to say that they are responsible to the Congress. Therefore, how to supervise the quality of its judicial activities has become an important issue in American judicial practice. As mentioned earlier, the President appoints judges and the Congress impeaches judges, which, to a certain extent, constitutes the supervision of the judicial department. In terms of background, experience, professional knowledge and ability, judges appointed by the president are usually competent. Their moral character has also passed the examination in the appointment process; If there is an illegal act after the appointment, Congress can remove it by impeachment. However, the supervision of judges by the President and Congress is limited: the President has basically lost control of judges after appointing them; Judges' handling of specific cases is not questioned by non-judicial officials such as the President. Similarly, as long as there is no illegal act, any judge need not worry that Congress will impeach him. Congress's right to recall judges has little influence on its daily judicial activities. In American judicial practice, more effective quality supervision of judges comes from American trial style and extensive coverage of justice by mass media. As a common law country, the judgment style of the United States basically follows the tradition of Britain: judges judge any case in the form of written judgment. The style of judgment is usually as follows: first, objectively describe and summarize the important facts involved in the case; Two, review the main arguments and arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant (or their lawyers); Third, according to relevant laws, applicable precedents, legislative intent of the legislature, public interest considerations, etc. Reasoning, analyzing and demonstrating specific cases and legal provisions, and making judgments. In an ideal situation, the judgment is a complete and rigorous document, which completely records the judge's thinking and reasoning about a case, and anyone can analyze and evaluate his judgment based on it and feel convinced. After a case is decided, the judgment is usually published immediately. Anyone can check and borrow in the library. Recent cases and judgments can be searched and read on the Internet through electronic media. This way of judging has brought great transparency to judicial activities and has become an effective supervision and promotion of the quality of judges' judgment. The mass media also plays an important role in supervising the quality of judicial activities. Judicial cases have always been the focus of American media reports. Especially the more famous cases, whether criminal or civil, will be reported in detail by major newspapers, radio stations and TV stations all over the country. In recent years, more cameras have entered the court to broadcast the trial process of the case live. The sensational Simpson case is the most obvious example recently. It is said that nearly 100 million viewers in the United States watched the trial and judgment live on TV. At present, major television stations in the United States have special judicial programs, inviting people in the judicial field to comment on important cases at present. In recent years, a special "court TV" channel has appeared, which broadcasts judicial news, reports and analyzes important cases all over the United States. Local media often report some local cases in detail. The extensive coverage of judicial activities by mass media has played a practical role in educating the American public, making them understand the Constitution and laws, being familiar with judicial procedures and understanding judges' decisions. Mass media, together with judicial decisions, fully exposes the judicial activities of courts and judges to the public, making the public a supervisor of judicial activities. Due to the transparency of the judiciary, judges are diligent in handling cases, so as to safeguard their image and reputation in society and the public's confidence in the judicial department.