Judicial review is a concept that allows modification and alteration of legal provisions in the constitution. The judicial review entails reforming legislation that seems irrelevant and oppressive to people. Judiciary is an arm of government in democratic countries. The U.S. government has a stable judicial system composed of state and federal courts. Courts are mandated to interpret the law in conflicts arising from criminal or civil cases. Some laws become obsolete and ineffective if they no longer impact change among the imprisoned. Judicial review is expected to interpret laws and review constitutional practices that hinder or prosper economic development in the U.S.
Justice does not allow judicial processes – in courts – to exercise too much power nor create laws. The executive arm of the government is granted political and economic power to bring development to its citizen. For instance, a Presidential Directive in the U.S. orders government agencies to act in the interests of the public. This was common during the immigration crises in America when children were being separated from their parents at detention centers. Justice allows state and federal courts to interpret laws within their stipulated jurisdiction as provided in the constitution. However, the U.S. judicial system seems to be exercising too much power. The judiciary is being accused of protecting the executive and disregarding interests of the legislative arm of government.
Arbitration is a good platform for resolving conflicts outside the court. There are instances when litigants feel unappreciated in judicial courts. Parties or individuals who lose court cases escalate the resolution to the next judicial court. Courts of appeal provide litigants with a second chance for proving a case against an accused or defendant. However, arbitration is a better Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as recognized by the constitution of the U.S. Arbitration protects the interests of litigants as all parties of conflict are allowed to weigh in on a dispute. The legal structure of arguing a court case is alien to most people.
Arbitration works best in situations where litigants do not understand how the judicial system works in America. It is also common in disputes which involve deep cultural beliefs not recognized by the U.S. Constitution. It is unfortunate that some cases of arbitration end up with more conflicts than a solution. Dominant parties persuade participants to rule a case in their favor. This is promoted by corruption and other social malpractices that bar success in arbitrating cases. According to King County rules, courts should not force parties to engage in mandatory arbitration. Arbitration operates, as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) category, which is optional to litigants. Individuals involved in a conflict might find it uncomfortable and insecure to solve a case using arbitration.
There are numerous problems associated with a forced legal process. There are conflicts in which litigants are forced to use arbitration for effective resolution. The U.S. judicial system supports arbitration at state and federal courts. The American judiciary has many shelved conflicts which take years before a resolution is passed by the court. The public loses hope with legal processes as they take long weeks, months and some cases, years. Arbitration provides an alternative platform for resolving legal conflicts. However, some people use arbitration as a mandatory process of resolving a conflict.
Litigants, with an inferior position in a court case, end up suffering negative consequences of forced arbitration. Dominance by some parties results in biased resolutions that favor certain individuals. For instance, a compensation figure might be reduced involving a crippled-patient hit by a company vehicle. In such a conflict, the patient is ill-advised by selfish parties of an arbitration process. The victim ends up underquoting a compensation figure due to the lack of legal information. The public should be allowed to enter into contracts that they agree with. Forced arbitration processes do not resolve legal conflicts as expected by the American judicial system.
The rules for disputing a decision of arbitration entail appealing to a court of law. However, the arbitration allows conflicting parties to agree on the process before it begins. A contract is signed between the litigants to make arbitration a legal process. The contract states that once parties agree to arbitration, its terms and parties involved – the outcome of the process is irreversible. Parties that complain of unfair judgment are allowed to appeal a case in a magistrate or federal court. Arbitration processes which end up with a disputed decision rarely succeed in a court of law.
The rule of arbitration which makes a decision final should be reviewed for fair judicial practices in the U.S. Legal scholars argue that arbitration aids in reducing legal cases existing in U.S. courts. They also claim that arbitration extends democracy by resolving public conflicts using reliable structures in the judicial system. However, biased decisions which resolve conflicts should be revisited when complaints arise. State and federal courts should establish a legal department which reviews arbitration outcomes and decisions. Justice should be achieved by all conflict resolution frameworks defined in the U.S. Constitution.