Do judges make the law or they merely interpret it?

Question

Do judges make the law or they merely interpret it?

Answer 1

from the immemorial times -they interpret the human nature make the life more misserable one.- in the name of law.

see the resent jugment in the much desired the abotion case.

Answer 2

Though Indian judges do not make the law,they have been known to take the law into their own hands.To cite an example,there was this judge who set up court on the platform of a railway station(just because he was refused a berth on a train)and not only tried the TT

who did his duty but sentenced him.Then there is the case of a Supreme Court Judge whom no one had the

gumption to proceed against despite having been found

guilty by a committee of his own peers.The Supreme Court,the Government and Parliament,one and all

not only connived at finding him not guilty of

impropriety but permitted him to retire gracefully(?)and with full terminal benefits.So you see,they don't need to make laws nor merely interpret them but can very well twist it every which way to suit the situation as they deem right.

Answer 3

in theory judges interpret laws which have made by lawless elements

in practice they tinker with laws  

Answer 4

It is the parliament which make laws and the judges only intrepret them

Answer 5

They make law BY interpreting it.  It's called "case law".

Statutes are made by a legislative body.  But language isn't powerful enough to create a statute that applies to every possible situation or fact pattern.

Courts apply the particular facts of a case to the statute and make a decision.  The court (normally on appeal) may issue a written decision explaining its analysis of the statute and facts of the case.  In a hierarchical court system that decision becomes binding on all lower courts in that branch of the hierarchy for future cases with similar facts.

Answer 6

Interesting Q)

http://armageddonsaviour.blogspot.com

http://armageddonsaviour.wordpress.com

Answer 7

legislature is law maker and also by way of judgments of supreme court law makes, so every judge can't law maker but they are only implimentar of law.  

Answer 8

Depends on who you ask.  Leftists believe judges function to serve their vision of the "greater good".

Answer 9

Their job is to interpret the law.  Sometimes that's not a straightforward task.  For example, in the U.S.A., the constitution was written more than 200 years ago.  It established the nation's guiding principles, but applying them to contemporary issues requires interpretation.  

Answer 10

They interpret law and interpretations become a kind of law or more than that most of the time.  

Answer 11

Judges don't make laws.  That is not their job.  Their job is to interpret it.  

Answer 12

they merely interpret them.  Congress makes laws, the president enforces them, the judicial system interprets them.

Answer 13

Both.

The judge's job (especially appellate and supreme court) is to interpret the laws and the constitution.  

On occasion, their interpretation "makes" laws.

For example, when the Court found that there was a right to an abortion within the US Constitution, it, in effect, made a law making the right to an abortion.

More obviously ... In the school desegregation cases, the court first found that "separate but equal" is illegal.  When the schools did not segregate, they further found that the schools must bus students to desegregate.  In effect, this made a law: school districts must bus students to achieve school desegragation.  Is this making a law?  Or is it enforcing the constitution?

It goes the other way as well.  In the Bush.Gore case, the Supreme court, in effect, made a law that said that recounts cannot be undertaken (regardless of the law), if all of the people involved do not use the same standard for counting "hanging chads" in a punch ballot.  This was despite the law that said (in Florida, which makes the law regarding its elections) that such recounts are appropriate.  Is this making a new law?  

In short, the EFFECT of an interpretation can be to essentially make a new law.  However, all judges, liberal or conservative, would argue tht they are merely interpreting the law.  But once interpreted, the courts must fashion a REMEDY for the litigant.  Otherwise, to simply say that the litigant has a right under a statute, but no way of enforcing such a right, the law and decision would have no meaning.

Answer 14

Law making is the prerogative of the legislature Judiciary acts as the watchdog and removes the ambiguity in the statutory application and interpretation. However, at times Judges have to take over the active role wherein they stress upon the need of making law on the areas which need immediate redressal and are necessary for societal growth.

Answer 15

Judges are supposed to interpret law and serve an important role in our checks and balances system.

In some cases they have "made" law. See SCOTUS decision on Roe vs. Wade.