Introduction
Courts are a way of bringing sanity to a state or a nation, people can decide to come up with policies and rules that govern them, but when these rules have no base or something momentous about them, they become extraneous and pure bliss. This is why courts are imperative, because they guarantee that rules are followed and failure to do so makes one eligible to punishment. It is consequently necessary to note the connotation of supreme courts in democracy.
Significance of Supreme Courts in a Democracy
Supreme courts ensure states are kept on check, for instance a rule that was of importance in America in the early 1960’s can still be useful by the judiciary in the current year. If that system worked well and people gained from it, the Supreme Court will acclimatize to that system (Lamb, Swain & Farkas 2010). The Supreme Court is the chief legal panel, when the jury in the Supreme Court decides on what should be followed, and there should be no contradiction to the decision. The Supreme Court decides what should be adapted and what is extraneous, by doing this the court identifies the significance of every rule in the constitution.
Supreme Courts handle insubstantial issues, matters that entail the existence and execution of people. From these cases, other rules are abolished and some punishments are traded with others, for example, someone can be sentenced to capital punishment because of a murder charge. When the Supreme Court goes through the evidence that was used to persecute this person, and takes into account that the evidence provided is not tangible, the murder charge can be abridged to manslaughter, which is punishable by life sentence (Barak, 2008). By trading the rules, and reducing the punishments, other rules are made. This is only applicable in cases where the charges laid before the Supreme Court, could have been altered with in terms of the witnesses, and evidence provided for the case.
The Supreme Court is in charge of implementation of the constitution. In every leadership, some rules have to change. When a new governor or president assumes office, there are some rules that were practiced by the preceding leaders that the current leader would want to disregard (McCloskey & Levinson, 2010). The Supreme Court takes into account the changes anticipated by the new leader, and decides whether they should be taken into account or not. By doing this, the Supreme Court ensures that a document that is antique but relevant to the current government is maintained. When such documents are maintained, people do not get confused. In case, the Supreme Court decides to apply a new constitution with every new leader, that particular state or government will have no history.
Conclusion
It is evident that the Supreme Court holds the last verdict of a state or a government. It decides what should be done, and what should not be put in practice. There is no rule that can be converted into a law without passing the corroboration of the Supreme Court. The members of the jury in lieu of the Supreme Court should therefore, be nonaligned individuals. This avoids the perception of people or states that the court could be favoring particular individuals or states.
References
Barak, A. (2008). The judge in a democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lamb, B., Swain, S. & Farkas, M. (2010). The Supreme Court: A C-SPAN book featuring the justices in their own words. New York, N.Y: Public Affairs.
McCloskey, R. G., & Levinson, S. (2010). The American Supreme Court. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press.