We in the common law world know what a judge is. He is a culture hero, even something of a father figure. Many of the great names of the common law are those of judges: Coke, Mansfield, Marshall, Story, Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo. We know that our legal tradition was originally created and has grown and developed in the hands of judges, reasoning closely from case to case and building a body of law that binds subsequent judges, through the doctrine of stare decisis, to decide similar cases similarly. We know that there is an abundance of legislation in force, and we recognize that there is a legislative function. But to us the common law means the law created and moulded by the judges, and we still think (often quite inaccurately) of legislation as serving a kind of supplementary function. We are accustomed, in the common law world, to judicial review of administrative action, and in the United States the power of judges to hold legislation invalid if unconstitutional is accepted without serious question. We know that our judges exercise very broad interpretative powers, even where the applicable statute or administrative action is found to be legally valid. We do not like to use such dramatic phrases as "judicial supremacy," but when pushed to it we admit that this is a fair description of the common law system, particularly in the United States.
We also know where our judges come from. We know that they attend law school and then have successful careers either in private practice or in government, frequently as district attorneys. They are appointed or elected to judicial positions on the basis of a variety of factors, including success in practice, their reputation among their fellow lawyers, and political influence. Appointment or election to the bench comes as a kind of crowning achievement relatively late in life. It is a form of recognition that brings respect and prestige. The judge is well paid, and if he is among the higher judicial echelons, he will have secretaries and research assistants. If he sits on the highest court of a state or is high in the federal judiciary, his name may be a household word. His opinions will be discussed in the newspapers and dissected and criticized in the legal periodicals. He is a very important person.
TEXT 7 JUDGES PART II
This is what common lawyers mean when they talk about judges. But in the civil law world, a judge is something entirely different. He is a civil servant, a functionary. Although there are important variations, the general pattern is as follows. A judicial career is one of several possibilities open to a student graduating from a university law school. Shortly after graduation, if he wishes to follow a judicial career, he will take a state examination for aspirants to the judiciary and, if successful, will be appointed as a junior judge. (In France and a few other nations, he must first attend a special school for judges.) Before very long, he will actually be sitting as a judge somewhere low in the hierarchy of courts. In time, he will rise in the judiciary at a rate dependent on some combination of demonstrated ability and seniority. He will receive salary increases according to pre-established schedules and will belong to an organization of judges that has improvement of judicial salaries, working conditions, and tenure as a principal objective.
|
|
|
Lateral entry into the judiciary is rare. Although provision is made in some civil law jurisdictions for the appointment of distinguished practicing attorneys or professors to high courts (particularly to the special constitutional courts established since World War II), the great majority of judicial offices, even at the highest level, are filled from within the ranks of the professional judiciary. Judges of the-high courts receive, and deserve, public respect, but it is the kind of public respect earned and received by persons in high places elsewhere in the civil service.
One of the principal reasons for the quite different status of the civil law judge is the existence of a different judicial tradition in the civil law, beginning in Roman times. The judge (iudex) of Rome was not a prominent man of the law. Prior to the Imperial period he was, in effect, a layman discharging an arbitral function by presiding over the settlement of disputes according to formulae supplied by another official, the praetor. The iudex was not expert in the law and had very limited power. For legal advice he turned to the jurisconsult. Later, during the Imperial period, the adjudication of disputes fell more and more into the hands of public officials who were also learned in the law, but by that time their principal function was clearly understood to be that of applying the emperor's will. The judge had no inherent lawmaking power. He was less limited in medieval and pre-revolutionary times, when it-was not unusual for continental judges to act much like their English counterparts. That, indeed, was the problem: they were interpreting creatively, building a common law that was a rival to the law of the central government in Paris and even developing their own doctrine of stare decisis.
With the revolution, and its consecration of the dogma of strict separation of powers, the judicial function was emphatically restricted. The revolutionary insistence that law be made only by a representative legislature meant that law could not be made, either directly or indirectly, by judges. One expression of this attitude was the requirement that the judge use only the law in deciding a case, and this meant, as we have seen in Chapter IV, that he could not base his decision on prior judicial decisions. The doctrine of stare decisis was rejected. An extreme, expression of the dogma of strict separation of the legislative and judicial powers was the notion that judges should not interpret incomplete, conflicting, or unclear legislation. They should always refer such questions to the legislature for authoritative interpretation. It was expected that there would not be very many such situations, and that after a fairly brief period almost all the problems would be corrected and further resort to the legislature for interpretation would be unnecessary. (The history of the retreat from this position will be described in the next chapter.)
