Political Role of the Judiciary in the Modern State
Unit 5 – The Political Function of the Judiciary
Directions:
- Legitimation of the Modern State (cont.): Justice centralized. The legality criterion. Individual welfare.
- Depoliticization of Conflict: Breaks the relationship of the particular case with the social organization. Individual. Party. Individualization of conflict. Subsumption. Logic and structure of society unchanged.
- Depoliticization of Conflict: Integration aims to orbit the conflicts of law. Subsumption. Direction of society is not questioned. Conflicts trivialized and ordered.
- Media Coverage of Conflicts Between State and Society: Interpretation and decision. Setting of limits and meaning of the laws and acts of the state. Economic and social rights of citizens. Decision on subjective grounds of the state and society.
Subsumption
A phenomenon that articulates two objectivities constructed: seeing the law as a goal (law) and reality as being constructed to distinguish the parties. Man as anything, objectified.
Deciding based only on law is also political; it has its political function. When we talk about politics, we talk about power and strength. But which side does it recognize that political element? The side of society or the state?
Fetishism of the Law
The law addiction: guarantees the separation of powers.
Exegetical Interpretation
Regardless of context.
The justice of the state is subject to review. Society recognizes that, from the legitimate ideological point of view of liberal society, it is devoid of power and strength, making these two by the State. Although centered in the state, the force should be limited to what society accepts. The solution of social conflicts should be made by the state, given that society has no means to fulfill it. The modern state thus has a monopoly on the use of force, in order to organize life in society. The judiciary has the role to say what is right according to established laws and codes, so that the investor does not suffer external influences or determinations. The lawsuits reach the individual, regardless of social context. Justice makes a break and sees only the particular case; it does not see this in relation to the whole. Itemization of parts. Man seen as an individual, as a part. Man upset with society = individual. This guy who has no religion, gender, or political side, because, consequently, in an objective, objectified way. Every man is equal to every man. Justice does not solve social conflicts. If it would address the conflicts, they would never happen. When the court decides, the logic and structure of society remain unchanged. The decision does not change the world around you and may be called a peripheral solution. However, decisions allow the continuation of the direction of society; this course is not questioned. Justice resolves disputes so that individuals do not change society. We should not idealize the justice court as being able to solve political and social conflicts. However, it legitimizes the state (in terms of discourse, ideology). Currently, in the twenty-first century, what we see is a justice of fighting, in which agreements are not produced (typical of the justice of the twentieth century, and with which the two parties leave satisfied after negotiation, not translating well to the State budget). Moreover, on current justice, it is worth highlighting that access to justice is not for everyone, considering that this is expensive. Equality or inequality?
Note: Society pushes the judiciary to resolve their conflicts.