Editing Judicial independence (section)

== Judicial independence by country ==
=== Australia ===
{{main|Judicial independence in Australia}}
There was a struggle to establish judicial independence in [[colonial Australia]],<ref name="Clark 2013">{{cite web |title=The struggle for judicial independence |last=Clark |first=D |url=http://www.law.mq.edu.au/public/download.jsp?id=131963 |access-date=2019-01-07 |archive-date=2016-03-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305145347/http://www.law.mq.edu.au/public/download.jsp?id=131963 |url-status=dead }} [2013] 12 Macquarie Law Journal 21.</ref> but by 1901 it was entrenched in the [[Australian constitution]], including the [[Separation of powers in Australia|separation of judicial power]] such that the [[High Court of Australia]] held in 2004 that all courts capable of exercising federal judicial power must be, and must appear to be, independent and impartial.<ref name="NAALAS 2004">{{cite AustLII|HCA|31|2004|litigants=North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley |parallelcite=(2004) 218 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 146}}. {{citation |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2004/hca31-2004-06-17.pdf |title=Judgment summary |publisher=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]] |access-date=2019-01-07 |archive-date=2019-04-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190415105901/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2004/hca31-2004-06-17.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Writing in 2007 [[Chief Justice of Australia]] [[Murray Gleeson]] stated that Australians largely took judicial independence for granted and the details were not matters of wide interest.<ref name="Gleeson 2007">{{cite web |last1=Gleeson |first1=M |title=Public Confidence in the Courts |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_9feb07.pdf |website=High Court |access-date=13 November 2018 |date=9 February 2007 |archive-date=28 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190728072707/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_9feb07.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> No federal judge and only one supreme court judge has been [[List of Australian judges whose security of tenure was challenged|removed for misconduct]] since 1901.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Kirby |first1=M |title=Discipline of judicial officers in Australia |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_judicialgroup.htm |website=High Court |access-date=7 January 2019 |date=February 2001 |archive-date=19 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190119211532/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_judicialgroup.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Immunity from suit for judicial acts, security of tenure, and fixed remuneration are all established parts of judicial independence in Australia. The appointment of judges remains exclusively at the discretion of the executive which gives rise to concerns expressed that judicial appointments are political and made for political gain.<ref name="Opeskin 1990">{{cite book |last1=Blackshield |first1=A |editor1=Opeskin, B |editor2=Wheeler, F |name-list-style=amp |title=The Australian Federal Judicial System |date=1990 |pages=427–8 |chapter=The Appointment and Removal of Federal Judges}}</ref> Issues continue to arise in relation to dealing with [[judicial misconduct]] not warranting removal and incapacity of judges. In 2013 [[Chief Justice of NSW]] [[Tom Bathurst]] identified the way in which judicial and court performance was measured as one of the most substantial risks to the separation of powers in Australia.<ref name="Bathurst (2013)">{{cite web |last=Bathurst |first=T F |author-link1=Tom Bathurst |title=Separation of Powers: Reality or Desirable Fiction? |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWJSchol/2013/39.pdf |access-date=2019-01-07 |archive-date=2017-05-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170516135756/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWJSchol/2013/39.pdf |url-status=live }} [2013] New South Wales Judicial Scholarship 39.</ref>

===Canada ===
[[Canada]] has a level of judicial independence entrenched in its [[Constitution of Canada|Constitution]], awarding superior court justices various guarantees to independence under sections 96 to 100 of the ''[[Constitution Act, 1867]]''. These include rights to tenure (although the Constitution has since been amended to introduce mandatory retirement at age 75) and the right to a salary determined by the [[Parliament of Canada]] (as opposed to the executive). In 1982 a measure of judicial independence was extended to inferior courts specializing in [[criminal law]] (but not [[civil law (common law)|civil law]]) by [[Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 11]] of the ''[[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]'', although in the 1986 case ''[[Valente v. The Queen]]'' it was found these rights are limited. They do, however, involve tenure, financial security and some administrative control.

The year 1997 saw a major shift towards judicial independence, as the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] in the [[Provincial Judges Reference]] found an unwritten constitutional norm guaranteeing judicial independence to all judges, including civil law inferior court judges. The unwritten norm is said to be implied by the [[preamble]] to the ''Constitution Act, 1867''. Consequently, judicial compensation committees such as the [[Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission]] now recommend judicial salaries in Canada.
There are two types of judicial independence: institutional independence and decisional independence. Institutional independence means the judicial branch is independent from the executive and legislative branches. Decisional independence is the idea that judges should be able to decide cases solely based on the law and facts, without letting the media, politics or other concerns sway their decisions, and without fearing penalty in their careers for their decisions.

=== Hong Kong ===
In [[Hong Kong]], independence of the judiciary has been the tradition since the territory became a British crown colony in 1842. After the 1997 transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to the [[People's Republic of China]] pursuant to the [[Sino-British Joint Declaration]], an international treaty registered with the [[United Nations]], independence of the judiciary, along with continuation of English [[common law]], has been enshrined in the territory's constitutional document, the [[Basic Law of Hong Kong|Basic Law]].<ref>[http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_1.html "The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China"- Chapter 1] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171123110932/http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_1.html |date=2017-11-23 }}, ''basiclaw.gov.HK'', 17 March 2008. Retrieved 2016-07-14.</ref><ref>[http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_4.html#section_4 "The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China"- Chapter 4, Section 4] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141230190055/http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_4.html#section_4 |date=2014-12-30 }}, ''basiclaw.gov.HK'', 17 March 2008. Retrieved 2016-07-14.</ref>

=== India ===
Judicial independence in India refers to the autonomy of the judiciary from the influence or interference of the executive and legislative branches of government. This principle is a cornerstone of the [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]] and a fundamental feature of the country's democratic framework. It ensures that judges are free to make decisions based solely on law and justice, without any external pressures, thereby upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-05-20 |title=Judicial Independence - Rau's IAS |url=https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/judicial-independence/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=compass.rauias.com |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Constitutional Provisions ====
The independence of the judiciary in India is enshrined in several provisions of the Constitution of India:

* Article 50 of the [[Directive Principles|Directive Principles of State Policy]] urges the state to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services.<ref>{{Cite web |date=21 March 2025 |title=Article 50 in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192717/ |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
* Article 124 to 147 deal with the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]], while Articles 214 to 231 concern the [[High courts of India|High Courts]]. These provisions ensure security of tenure, fixed service conditions, and protection against arbitrary removal of judges.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/237570/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
* Article 121 and 211 prohibit the discussion of the conduct of judges in Parliament and State Legislatures, respectively, except in the context of impeachment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 121 in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/598239/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 211 in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496247/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
* Article 368 provides the procedure for constitutional amendments but does not permit the curtailment of judicial independence.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 368 in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/594125/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Joshi |first=Krishnendra |date=2019-05-15 |title=The Doctrine of Basic Structure |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-basic-structure/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Appointment and Tenure of Judges ====
Originally, the appointment of judges was carried out by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and other senior judges. However, the [[Collegium system|Collegium System]], evolved through Supreme Court judgments (notably the [[Collegium system|Second Judges Case]] in 1993), gave primacy to the judiciary (Specifically the [[Chief Justice of India|CJI]] and two senior judges of Supreme Court) in appointments and transfers of judges. This system aims to preserve independence by insulating the appointment process from political interference.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Editor |first=Vajiram |date=2025-03-10 |title=Collegium System in India, Meaning, Appointments, UPSC Notes |url=https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/collegium-system-and-appointments/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |language=en-IN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/753224/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through a complex impeachment process requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity (Article 124(4)).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article 124(4) in Constitution of India |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41081345/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

==== Financial Independence ====
The Constitution also ensures financial independence by charging the salaries and allowances of Supreme Court and High Court judges to the [[Consolidated Fund|Consolidated Fund of India]] or the respective states, meaning they are not subject to vote by the legislature.

==== Judicial Review and Activism ====
Judicial independence empowers courts to exercise [[judicial review]], the authority to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality. The Supreme Court, through landmark judgments such as [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)]], upheld the [[Basic structure doctrine|Basic Structure Doctrine]], preventing Parliament from altering the Constitution's essential features, including judicial independence.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

Indian courts have also developed a tradition of [[judicial activism]], particularly through [[Public interest litigation in India|Public Interest Litigations (PILs)]], allowing courts to act on behalf of the public good even in the absence of a traditional legal dispute.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mahawar |first=Sneha |date=2022-08-05 |title=Judicial activism |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-activism/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Garg |first=Rachit |date=2021-02-23 |title=All you need to know about Public Interest Litigation (PIL) |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-public-interest-litigation-pil/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== During the Emergency (1975–1977) ====
One of the most significant tests of judicial independence in India occurred during the [[The Emergency (India)|Emergency]] declared by [[Indira Gandhi|Prime Minister Indira Gandhi]] from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. [[Civil liberties]] were suspended, political opponents were jailed, and [[Freedom of the press|press freedom]] was severely curtailed. This period highlighted how the judiciary could be vulnerable to executive overreach—and how it responded under pressure.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-30 |title=Explained: The story of the Emergency |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-history/explained-the-story-of-the-emergency-9421688/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

===== The ADM Jabalpur Case (Habeas Corpus Case) =====
At the center of the judicial controversy during the Emergency was the [[ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla]] (1976) case, commonly known as the Habeas Corpus case. The question before the Supreme Court was: ''Can a person challenge unlawful detention during the Emergency when the right to life and liberty under Article 21 has been suspended?''<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Dhingra |first=Anjali |date=2024-09-24 |title=A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976) |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/adm-jabalpur-v-shivakant-shukla/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Additional District Magistrate, ... vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

In a 4:1 majority judgment, the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] held that no person had the right to seek a writ of [[habeas corpus]] during the Emergency. This essentially gave the state unchecked power to detain individuals without trial. The lone dissent came from [[Hans Raj Khanna|Justice H.R. Khanna]], who famously ruled that ''"Even in absence of Article 21, the State has no power to deprive a person of life or liberty without authority of law."'' His courageous stand cost him the position of [[Chief Justice of India]], as he was superseded in seniority.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-06-25 |title=43 years since Emergency: A look back at HR Khanna, the judge who stood up to Indira Gandhi |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/43-years-since-emergency-a-look-back-at-hr-khanna-the-judge-who-stood-up-to-indira-gandhi-365539.html |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=Firstpost |language=en-us}}</ref>

This decision is widely regarded as a dark moment in Indian judicial history, where the judiciary was seen to have failed in its duty to protect fundamental rights.<ref name=":1" />

===== Executive Influence and Supercession of Judges =====
[[The Emergency (India)|The Emergency]] also saw executive interference in judicial appointments. In several instances, senior judges were superseded in favor of more pliant ones—particularly those seen as more favorable to the government. This practice undermined the convention of seniority and was viewed as a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Pai |first=Amit A. |date=2023-04-26 |title=1973 April 26- The Saddest Day In The History Of Our Free Institution |url=https://www.livelaw.in/articles/supreme-court-supersession-justice-jm-shelat-justice-ks-hegde-and-justice-an-grover-justice-an-ray-227230 |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>

[[A. N. Ray|Justice A.N. Ray]], who sided with the majority in the [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|Kesavananda Bharati]] case but dissented from the majority in the [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/513801/ Bank Nationalization case], was appointed [[Chief Justice of India]] by superseding three senior judges in 1973—an event often seen as a precursor to the erosion of judicial independence during the Emergency.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=A.N. Ray |url=https://www.scobserver.in/judges/a-n-ray/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref>

===== Legacy and Reassessment =====
After the Emergency ended and the [[Janata Party]] came to power, there was widespread introspection. The ADM Jabalpur judgment was heavily criticized, and many later Supreme Court decisions essentially overruled it in spirit, even if not formally.

In 2017, the Supreme Court in the [[Puttaswamy v. Union of India|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (privacy case) declared the ADM Jabalpur ruling to be “seriously flawed” and overruled it explicitly. The judgment reaffirmed that fundamental rights cannot be suspended even in times of crisis, thereby restoring the dignity of judicial independence.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

=== Singapore ===
{{main|Judicial independence in Singapore}}
Judicial independence in Singapore is protected by the [[Constitution of Singapore]], statutes such as the State Courts Act and Supreme Court of Judicature Act, and the [[common law]]. To safeguard judicial independence, [[law of Singapore|Singapore law]] lays down special procedures to be followed before the conduct of [[Supreme Court of Singapore|Supreme Court]] [[judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore#The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners|judges]] may be discussed in [[Parliament of Singapore|Parliament]] and for their removal from office for misconduct, and provides that their remuneration may not be reduced during their tenure. By statute, judicial officers of the [[Subordinate Courts of Singapore|State Courts]], and the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and assistant registrars of the Supreme Court have immunity from civil suits, and are prohibited from hearing and deciding cases in which they are personally interested. The common law provides similar protections and disabilities for Supreme Court judges.

The [[Chief Justice of Singapore|Chief Justice]] and other Supreme Court judges are appointed by the [[President of Singapore]] acting on the advice of the [[Cabinet of Singapore]]. The President must consult the Chief Justice when appointing other judges, and may exercise personal discretion to refuse to make an appointment if he does not concur with the Cabinet's advice. Supreme Court justices enjoy [[security of tenure]] up to the age of 65 years, after which they cease to hold office. However, the Constitution permits such judges to be re-appointed on a term basis.

===United Kingdom===
====History in England and Wales====
{{See also|History of the constitution of the United Kingdom}}
During the [[Middle Ages]], under the Norman monarchy of the [[Kingdom of England]], the king and his [[Curia Regis]] held judicial power. Judicial independence began to emerge during the [[early modern period]]; more courts were created and a judicial profession grew. By the fifteenth century, the king's role in this feature of government became small.<ref>Justice [[Gerard La Forest]], [[Provincial Judges Reference]], [[Supreme Court of Canada]], para. 305.</ref> Nevertheless, kings could still influence courts and dismiss judges. The [[Stuart dynasty]] used this power frequently in order to overpower the [[Parliament of England]]. After the Stuarts were removed in the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688, some advocated guarding against royal manipulation of the judiciary. King [[William III of England|William III]] approved the [[Act of Settlement 1701]], which established tenure for judges unless Parliament removed them.<ref>{{cite web|title=Independence|url=http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/|publisher=Courts and Tribunals Judiciary|access-date=9 November 2014|archive-date=28 May 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140528124219/http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Justice Gerard La Forest, Provincial Judges Reference, para. 306.</ref>

==== Contemporary usage ====
{{See also|Judiciary of England and Wales|Judiciary of Scotland|Judiciary of Northern Ireland}}

Under the uncodified [[Constitution of the United Kingdom|British Constitution]], there are two important [[Constitutional convention (political custom)|conventions]] which help to preserve judicial independence. The first is that the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] does not comment on the cases which are before the court. The second is the principle of [[parliamentary privilege]]: that [[Member of Parliament|Members of Parliament]] are protected from prosecution in certain circumstances by the courts.{{citation needed|date=May 2017}}

Furthermore, the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the [[Constitutional Reform Act 2005]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Constitutional reform|url=http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/constitutional-reform/|publisher=Courts and Tribunals Judiciary|access-date=9 November 2014}}</ref> In order to try to promote the independence of the judiciary, the selection process is designed to minimize political interference. The process focuses on senior members of the judiciary rather than on politicians. Part 2 of the [[Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007]] aims to increase [[diversity (politics)|diversity]] among the judiciary.{{citation needed|date=May 2017}}

The pay of judges is determined by an independent pay review body. It makes recommendations to the government after taking evidence from a variety of sources. The government accepts these recommendations and will traditionally implement them fully. As long as judges hold their positions in "good order", they remain in post until they wish to retire or until they reach the [[mandatory retirement]] age of 70.{{citation needed|date=May 2017}}

Until 1 January 2010, the legal profession was self-regulating; with responsibility for implementing and enforcing its own professional standards and disciplining its own members. The bodies which performed this function were the [[Bar Council]] and the [[Law Society of England and Wales|Law Society]]. However, this self-regulation came to an end when approved regulators came under the regulation of the [[Legal Services Board]], composed of non-lawyers, following the passage of the [[Legal Services Act 2007]]. This saw the establishment of the [[Solicitors Regulation Authority]] to regulate [[solicitor]]s and the [[Bar Standards Board]] to regulate [[barrister]]s.<ref name="legal_serves_act_2007">{{Cite legislation UK|type=act|act=Legal Services Act 2007|chapter=29|year=2007}}</ref>

===United States===
====Federal courts====
[[Article Three of the United States Constitution|Article III]] of the [[United States Constitution]] establishes the [[United States federal courts|federal courts]] as part of the [[federal government of the United States|federal government]].

The Constitution provides that [[United States federal judge|federal judges]], including judges of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]], are appointed by the [[President of the United States|President]] "by and with the [[advice and consent]] of the [[United States Senate|Senate]]". Once appointed, federal judges:

{{quote|...both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.}}

Federal judges vacate office only upon death, resignation, or [[Federal impeachment in the United States|impeachment and removal from office]] by [[United States Congress|Congress]]; only 13 federal judges have ever been impeached. The phrase "during good behavior" predates the Declaration of Independence. [[John Adams]] equated it with ''[[Wikt:quamdiu se bene gesserint|quamdiu se bene gesserint]]'' in a letter to the [[Boston Gazette]] published on 11 January 1773,<ref>{{cite book|title=The Works of John Adams, Vol 3|last=Adams|first=John|year=1851|publisher=Little and Brown|place=Boston|page=522}}</ref> a phrase that first appeared in section 3 of the [[Act of Settlement 1701]] in England.

The President is free to appoint any person to the federal bench, yet typically he consults with the [[American Bar Association]], whose Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rates each nominee "Well Qualified", "Qualified" or "Not Qualified".

====State courts====
[[State court (United States)|State courts]] deal with independence of the judiciary in many ways, and several forms of judicial selection are used for both [[trial court]]s and [[appellate court]]s (including [[state supreme court]]s), varying between states and sometimes within states. In some [[U.S. state|states]], judges are elected (sometime on a partisan ballot, other times on a [[Non-partisan democracy|nonpartisan]] one), while in others they are appointed by the [[Governor (United States)|governor]] or [[State legislature (United States)|state legislature]].

The 2000 case of ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'', in which a majority of the Supreme Court, including some appointees of President [[George H. W. Bush]], overruled challenges to the election of [[George W. Bush]] then pending in the [[Florida Supreme Court]], whose members had all been appointed by Democratic governors, is seen by many as reinforcing the need for judicial independence, both with regard to the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. This case has increased focus and attention on judicial outcomes as opposed to the traditional focus on judicial qualifications.