1. The Importance of An Impartial Judiciary
This PowerPoint has been specially designed for teens and young adults by the Sacramento Superior Court.  The Court would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Communications and Community Outreach Division, and special recognition to Judicial Administration Fellow Michael Carlin for adapting the original presentation for a youth audience.
This presentation is about our government, more specifically about our courts and their independence.
Before talking about the courts, however, I would like to talk with you briefly about our government in general, the basis for our form of government, and the importance of preserving the principles upon which our form of government was founded.
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
The California Judges Association
The Judicial Council of California

2. Four Ideals that Support Our Government
1. The Rule of Law
2. The Separation of Powers
3. Checks & Balances
4. Impartial Courts & Judges
In order to understand our government, we have to understand these 4 ideals upon which our government was founded.
[click to advance text]
Impartial may be a new word to many of you, it basically means fair and not pre judging. It is very important to the rule of law.
I will discuss briefly the first three Ideals and then spend the remainder of this presentation on #4 Impartiality of our courts and judges.

3. Ideal #1 The Rule of Law The law regulates every person’s conduct
Gives everyone the same rights
Laws are not the orders of a powerful government official, like a king or dictator
One of the most important principles behind the courts and government is the rule of law.
The rule of law is the concept by which the equality of all citizens can be protected because under the rule of law
[Review text on slide and elaborate]
I’ll need 2 volunteers to demonstrate an example of this ideal.

4. What if umpires could make up their own rules during a game?
Now imagine we’re in a baseball park. You (2) are the umpire, and you (1) are up to bat and hit a home run straight out of that ballpark, through center field.
[Click to play sound of batter hitting home run]

5. What if umpires could make up their own rules during a game?
Umpire: Foul Ball!

6. Batter: What! I clearly hit it through center field and out of the park, that means that it’s a home run! How can you say it’s a foul?

7. Umpire: Too bad, that’s my definition of a foul.

8. Batter: Show me where you got your definition.

9. Umpire: Look, those are just my rules. I’m the umpire, deal with it.
Presenter: Now, how do we know that our umpire here is mistaken? Well, because there are rules that define what a homerun is.
But what if there were no rules. If there were no rules then neither the umpire nor the batter would be right, the game would just break down into chaos.
Just as this game can not be played fairly without established rules that everyone must follow, government can not be fair without established rules that everyone must follow.

10. Like a bad umpire, King George ordered judges to decide
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
(July 4, 1776)
List of ways that King George III
was acting unfairly
[click to point arrow to the Declaration of Independence]
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another … and to assume a separate and equal station... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.“ With these words the 13 American colonies began their Declaration of Independence from England.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence (including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams) set forth in the Declaration the causes which compelled them to separate from England. Among the most important causes leading the signers to declare the independence of the 13 colonies were that King George had “obstructed the administration of justice” and “been deaf to the voice of justice” in the colonies:
By Appointing judges that always ruled in his favor
By Reducing pay when judges didn’t rule in his favor
By taking away the right for a trial by jury
Of all grievances detailed in the Declaration of Independence, none was more galling than the lack of independence imposed by King George on Colonial judges: “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
Ladies and Gentlemen think about it, the foundations of this country, our government, our way of life was, among other things, constructed upon the revolutionary notion that to be truly free, our citizens required and demanded that we institute an impartial and independent judiciary.
Like a bad umpire, King George ordered judges to decide
cases based on his wishes, not the rule of law

11. CONSTITUTION Just as all sports have rules,
(Sept. 17, 1787)
Just as all sports have rules,
our government has the constitution,
this is the set of rules that the government must follow The constitution strengthened the rule of law by:
Allowing the courts to protect rights
-Speedy jury trial, and other rights
Removing governmental and popular influences from the court
11 years later, and after the Revolutionary War, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, John Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other founders of the American form of government gathered in Philadelphia to draft the US Constitution.
In order to avoid the injustices they had suffered under colonial rule the founders wanted to strengthen the rule of law and limit the powers of government
[click to advance and review text]
To accomplish these purposes, the founders drafted a constitution that rested on important principles of constitutional democracy.
To institutionalize the dreams of our Declaration of Independence, our forbearers raised the concept of an independent judicial system to Constitutional status, enshrining it forever in Article III and even highlighting it in the Preamble itself. As if that were not sufficient, the right to a trial by jury was emphasized in our Bill of Rights in the Sixth & Seventh Amendment (Criminal & Civil trials)
The constitution also separated the powers of government

12. Ideal #2 The Separation of Powers Into Three Branches of Government
Legislative
Create the law
Executive
Carry out the law
Judicial
Interpret and
apply the law
From the development of the rule of law in the 18th century came three distinct legal powers of the government. [Click to advance boxes]
the power to make the law (legislative);
the power to execute or carry out the law (executive);
and the power to interpret and apply the law in resolving disputes (judicial).
Can anyone name a legislator or executive?
Under the English colonial governments in the American colonies in the 18th century, the judicial power was very weak compared to the legislative and executive powers, and the colonial judges tended to uphold the will of the English King and colonial governors by whom they were appointed rather than the rights of the colonists.

13. The Separation of Powers (cont.)
The government’s powers are split between the three branches
Each branch of government is equal in power
No branch can exercise a power granted to one of the other branches
Separation of powers limits the power of all branches of government so that no 1 branch becomes too powerful (like a king)
[Advance]
The powers of the government are spread among the different branches,
Each branch of government is co-equal
No branch can exercise the authority granted to another branch – this provides a safeguard against one branch controlling the others or having too much power.

14. Ideal #3 Checks and Balances
If one branch doesn’t agree with another branch’s decision, it can take action against that decision.
A third important principle of government is that of checks and balances.
[do not read notes if audience is restless]
This term refers to a Constitutional scheme of government that seeks to further limit governmental power by providing means by which each branch of government can check, or partially obstruct, the exercise of power by the others. In this way, the Constitution further limits the powers of government by providing each branch with a means of checking the power of other branches.
The Legislative Branch has the power to make the law, but the Judicial Branch has the power to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution. The Judicial Branch has the final say over what the constitution means, over how it should be interpreted.
The Executive Branch has the power to charge an individual with a crime, but the Judicial Branch determines whether someone will be detained based on those charges, whether someone is guilty, and if so, what the sentence will be. The Legislative Branch can also pass laws creating limitations on the sentencing choices exercised by the Judicial Branch.
The Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the law but the Legislative Branch has the power of the purse, including authority over the courts’ budgets.
Of course there are other checks and balances. For instance, while the Judicial Branch may declare a law unconstitutional, the Legislative Branch, along with the people, have the power to change the Constitution itself. It is a delicate balance that has served us well for over 200 years.
[introduce clip:] The following clip will illustrate this balance
Consider this joke about a president, a senator, and a judge
with checks and balances.

15. [after clip]
The first chief justice of the United States said that not having impartial judges is the worst thing that could happen to a country.

16. Ideal #4 Impartial Courts & Judges
Impartiality is a judge’s ability to decide cases:
Only considering the law;
(As an umpire would only consider the rules)
Not considering personal gain, prejudices, preferences, or beliefs;
(As an umpire would not call in favor of their favorite team)
Without outside powers telling judges how to make decisions or run their courtrooms;
(As fans and team managers can’t tell umpires how to make calls).
Today, I am focusing on the third branch of government, the judicial branch.
[click to review text]
Judicial independence is a fourth important principle on which the US Constitution is based. Judicial independence is the freedom of the judiciary from undue or improper influence or pressure, whether from other branches of government, politics, public opinion, litigants, or other sources.
Judicial independence generally consists of two kinds: (1) “decisional” independence referring to the independence of individual judges in deciding issues before them, and; (2) “institutional” independence referring to the independence of the court or judicial branch in governing and managing its own affairs.

17. What if umpires knew the rules but broke them for personal reasons?
[Read title then notes]
I will need my 2 volunteers again for this demonstration.
Like our first example you (1) are up to bat and hit a home run straight out of that ballpark, through center field.
[Click to play sound of batter hitting home run]

18. What if umpires could make up their own rules during a game?
Umpire: Foul Ball!

19. Batter: Not again, are you blind
Batter: Not again, are you blind? That was totally a home run, and this time I have the official rules to prove it.

20. Umpire: The rules, hah! That doesn’t matter because it’s my call.

21. Batter: But you have to follow the rules, you can’t just make calls for other reasons.

22. Umpire: Well I have some pretty good reasons, in fact I have about 2,000 green reasons that the visiting team gave me before the game.

23. Batter: How is that fair
Batter: How is that fair? You got paid by the other team to make that dumb call? No matter how I play, you’ll never let me score a run.
[Try to engage students with some of these questions]
Why do you think this umpire made a decision that’s obviously biased?
What influenced him or could have influenced him?
What happens if umpires don’t make decisions according to the rules?
Why couldn’t we have a game if umpires or referees took gifts from the other teams?
Umpires are not allowed to make decisions based on whether their favorite team was playing, what fans want, or gains they might make if one side wins. Judges must remain impartial, free from the influence of pressures like these… [click to advance to the next slide]

24. Legislative & Executive
Political Party
Special Interests
Judicial
Legislative & Executive
This graphic demonstrates what I just referred to. You see the legislative and executive branches have to consider all of these powers in their actions.
[read off list]
But like umpires, The judicial branch’s only concern is the rules, meaning the law.
[click to x each]
Voters
Personal Preferences

25. Why does it matter to me if judges are impartial?
The court can potentially make a great impact on your life and in society, imagine that you are one of these individuals.
[click to play movie, then click after movie ends to advance the slide]

26. Courts Have the Power to Protect All Persons Equally From Abuses of Political Power
Impartial judges fairly and equally administer the laws to all persons regardless of age, ethnicity, race, gender, disability, religion, or social status.
They are not influenced by public opinion.
Examples -
Racial prejudice
Religious discrimination
Judicial Impartiality allows courts to fairly operate even when the other branches of government, influential groups of people, political parties, and other forces disagree with the law and constitution. As the video showed, no matter how other people view you, judges must view all people as equal according to the law.
[click to advance text]

27. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
According to the law, until 1954 white and black children had to attend separate schools
At that time most people were in favor of segregated schools
The US Supreme Court decided that separate schools were unequal by nature and therefore unconstitutional
[click to advance and review BODY text]
Segregated schools broke the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of all citizens under the law.
Because the Judiciary did not rely on the desires of voters in their decision, the law was overturned and now all of you are free to socialize with your friends, no matter what color their skin is.

28. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
In West Virginia all students were required to salute the flag. Those who did not salute were expelled.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs forbade them from saluting the flag in this manner.
The court decided that forcing this practice was unconstitutional.
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” Justice Robert Jackson
[click to advance and review BODY text]
The West Virginia Board of Education required that a flag salute take place in all public schools. All pupils were required to salute the flag by reciting the pledge of allegiance with right arm raised, palm facing up. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs forbade them from saluting the flag in this manner.
However, those who did not salute were expelled. Readmission was denied until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child was considered 'unlawfully absent' and could be charged with delinquency. His parents or guardians were liable to prosecution, and if convicted could be fined or imprisoned up to thirty days. 28

29. The Judiciary Protects Religious Liberty
“Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for [religious] exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.”
-Thomas Jefferson 1808
Consider:
Crèche in city hall
Proposition 8
[click to advance and review BODY text]
The constitution deposited the right to religious liberty, but as seen in the Barnette case, the judiciary protects it from attacks. 29

30. They have unique duties and rules to follow
Judges are unlike other government officials
They have unique duties and rules to follow
As mentioned before, Judicial independence does not mean judges can do whatever they want

31. Role of Judges:
Do not write the laws or express their personal preferences
(Just as umpires don’t write the rule books)
Interpret and apply legislation and higher court rulings whether they personally agree with the laws or not
Apply the laws, even if the public does not like the laws
If a law is defective, it’s the legislature’s job to fix it
[If audience is restless only read through the slide and the bold note below]
These principles (the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial independence) became embedded in the various state constitutions as well as in the US Constitution. Thus, the basic roles of the courts, whether federal or state, are the same. [Click to Advance text]
The court interprets the laws but does not write them. The only laws that the courts make are the rules for the operation of the court.
Courts do not write the laws, or decide cases in accord with their personal preferences. Courts perform the judicial function only when presented with a real dispute between litigants. Courts do not try to correct problems on their own initiative and do not decide hypothetical disputes.
Many members of the public have a misperception about these points. Judges actually are called upon to make decisions that go against their personal views if that is what the law requires. This concept is counterintuitive since many court opponents argue that judges are simply deciding cases based upon their own personal views. While judges, like all folks, are not perfect, the overwhelming majority take this charge very seriously. The courage to make the right decision based upon the law and the Constitutions, even in the presence of partisan interest and public clamor, is, perhaps, the most respected shared value among judicial colleagues. [Advance]

32. The Code of Judicial Ethics Restricts Judges’ Activities
Judges can’t hear cases if it appears that they might not be able to fairly judge.
(Could you be fair if your friend, family member, or campaign contributor was in a case that came before you?)
Judges cannot state their opinions on matters that they heard or may hear.
Judges are not allowed to accept personal gifts.
(Is it fair to the Yankees if an umpire accepted personal gifts from the Red Sox in an upcoming game between the two teams?)
Judges’ activities are restricted by the Code of Judicial Ethics
[Advance]
Judges are not allowed to become involved in partisan activities and must recuse themselves from cases in which there may be a conflict of interest.
Unlike legislators, judges cannot make statements as candidates about how they would rule in a case; this is because a judge must rule based on the facts of an individual case and the applicable law.
It is ironic that if ever a judicial candidate were to campaign in an election promising always to decide a particular case in a particular manner, regardless of the facts and the law, that candidate might be precluded from ever considering that type of case. If the voting public were more aware of this restriction, they might be more suspicious of promises by judicial candidates and less insistent that judges state publicly their positions on popular issues.
Unlike legislators, judges cannot receive contributions and then decide cases on matters related to the contributor if a person who was aware of the circumstances might reasonably doubt that the judge could be fair.
Judges must remain objective and unbiased.

33. What do you think would happen if judges were allowed to accept personal gifts?
[click to play movie]
What happened here?
If you had a case against the company of this CEO, would you like it if the judge of your case received gifts from this CEO?
The Code of Judicial Ethics prevents much of this, but there are even greater threats to the impartiality of judges.

34. The Third Branch of Government
Threats to judicial impartiality
Even though the framers of our government established the courts to be independent in order to fulfill their role most effectively, today there are threats to the impartiality of the judicial branch.
Before we discuss these threats to the impartiality of the judicial branch, it is important to remember a few things that I said earlier:
Judges serve under some constraints that do not apply to other governmental officials.
Judges are prohibited from publicly responding to criticism if it is about a pending case. [Elaborate]
And
Judges can only apply the “rule of law” and can not rule based on their personal preferences.

35. Hope Fighting to Protect the Courts
Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (and this PP and a growing number of organizations):
“…we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies.”

36. Hope Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
The founders realized there has to be someplace where being right is more important than being popular or powerful, and where fairness trumps strength. And in our country, that place is supposed to be the courtroom.

37. New Threats To Judicial Impartiality
A proposed initiative (proposition) in South Dakota would allow judges to be sued or sent to jail when people disagreed with their decisions.
(Would umpires do their job fairly if the fans could throw them in jail for unpopular, but correct decisions?)
[skip notes if audience is restless]
In November, 2005, activists qualified an initiative in South Dakota that appeared on the ballot in The initiative proposed to allow people to sue judges if they believed the judge had violated their rights in a court proceeding, essentially stripping judges of their judicial immunity.
Under the proposed South Dakota amendment, state court judges would lose their immunity in cases alleged to involve deliberate violations of the law or someone’s constitutional rights. Unhappy litigants could file complaints against judges after the traditional appeals process had finished. Then, a special grand jury would handle complaints, deciding whether a judge could be sued or face criminal charges.
If the grand jury decided on criminal charges, it would have the power to indict the judge and create a special tribunal that would act as both judge and jury, deciding guilt and any sentence.
Although this ballot initiative was defeated by a large margin in South Dakota, its backers plan to get it on the ballot in other states, including California.
It is important that the public know the potential consequences of such a measure. [Click to jail umpire and judges]

38. New Threats To Judicial Impartiality Recall (Impeachment)
Recently a Sacramento judge decided that civil unions between same sex partners were allowable according to the Constitution.
A special interest group mounted a recall campaign within 24 hours. Higher court justices were threatened with recall as well.
(Would it be fair if umpires were fired by fans for unpopular decisions?)
[only read the slide and bold notes if audience is restless]
The judge had reviewed the parties briefs, heard argument in court, and issued an extensive written opinion declaring the laws as enacted by the Legislature to be Constitutional.
(“Here is a trick question – What was this judge’s personal beliefs about civil unions – was he for them or against them. Answer: We do not know nor are his personal opinions relevant for any purpose when deciding constitutionality.”)
Within one day of the judge’s ruling, a particular political/religious group announced their attempt to recall the judge, solely based on his one ruling in their case.
The recall proponents stated that if the decision upholding the constitutionality of the law was reversed by the Court of Appeal, then their recall effort against the trial judge would cease.
The special interest members stated that they took no issue with the judge’s work ethic, his overall competence, or his dedication to the profession. They simply did not like one decision. This special interest group wants every judge in California to consider, before making any ruling, whether that decision might subject him or her to a recall from office.
The recall of a judge because a political or social group disagrees with a single decision would be a disastrous precedent for our justice system. Jurors are told daily in courtrooms throughout California that they are not to be influenced by public sentiment or public opinion, but rather they are to determine the case based on the law and facts, regardless of the consequences. Stressful and costly recalls of judges who make decisions based upon law and not public opinion would require judges to ignore the law or to follow it at their own peril. Eventually there would be no independent judges surviving and such a system would not be worth saving. It is the very independent application of facts to the law and Constitution by juries and judges that preserves the very liberties these groups have the freedom to enjoy.
[click to X umpire and judge]

39. This doesn’t mean that judges can’t be questioned.
The constitution has protections to handle disagreement with court decisions.
These types of threats to judicial independence are unnecessary. There are remedies for those unsatisfied with the outcome of a particular case.

40. What To Do If You Disagree With a Judge’s Decision or Behavior?
You have the right to appeal your case to a higher court if you are unhappy with the ruling
(This can be compared to instant replay)
Judges are currently subject to discipline for misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Performance
Judge’s are subject to disciple for wrongdoing, just as students are.
[Advance]
If dissatisfied, a litigant in a civil case or a defendant in a criminal case can have the case reviewed by a higher court.
This is like instant replay, the reviewer must see clear and convincing reason to reverse the prior judgement.
Judges are subject to discipline for misconduct through a process guided by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

41. Why is the Rule of Law So Important?
I hope you all understand why the Rule of Law and an impartial judiciary are important, without it our court could look like this…
[click to play movie, then ask questions on the following slide to engage students]

42. How would you feel if a judge gave a ruling without listening to you?
Why is the Rule of Law So Important?
How would you feel if a judge gave a ruling without listening to you?
Has anyone ever made a decision about you without listening to your side?
How did you feel and what did you want to do about it?
[Try to engage the students in dialogue by asking these questions]
The rule of law and impartial judges are important foundations of our government. Without the protections of jury trials under the rule of law, and an impartial judges, government officials could have the authority to decide in this way. Society would break down into chaos
I want to leave you with this message… [click to advance to next slide] 42

43. Legal Equality
Ladies and Gentlemen,
All of you know that the United States is involved in a wars overseas.  Although there is tremendous disagreement over the merits of the wars themselves, I think we can all agree that we have hundreds of thousands of brave American men and women who have sacrificed a year or more of their lives and who every day risk being killed or severely injured in service to their country. 
The very least that we can do here in America is to ensure that when these soldiers come home, and we hope that every single one does come home safely, that they will return to a country that still has an impartial and independent judiciary protecting the freedoms of all Americans; that, while they were gone, we fought to prevent private interests groups from taking over, from co-opting, from destroying our justice system; that, when they return, they will have a country and government here worth saving.
An impartial court allows all individuals equal and fair treatment under the law

44. What if you hit a home run, and
it counts as a home run?

45. What if umpires could make up their own rules during a game?
Umpire: Homerun!

46. Batter: How cool, that’s actually fair.

47. Umpire: Well duh. Look I’m not trying to be cool, I’m following the rules and being impartial.
Now this game actually works with established rules and impartial judges, er I mean umpires.

48. Thank you for taking the time to understand the importance of impartial judges in your life

49. Video credits: Fairplay.org Justiceatstake.org Youthforhumanrights.org
Superior Court of California
County of Sacramento
Communications & Community Outreach
2009
saccourt.ca.gov