No, according to me the court should be independent and not answerable to any other department of the government in this case. Being free is not sufficient for the legal organization. Judges must be assured that they are free of any legal obligation to pass rule. Judges must be supposed to be impartial and fair (Talmadge, Philip, 1998). Taking law seriously as it is opposed by the decision making is based upon the personal views of the judge. This is what differentiate judges from other political officials. They must live their own lives in such a way to stay away from all the unethical words, activities and circumstances that may cause biases in the decision making, which may cause them to sound being one-sided and break the law that they are promised to maintain. They should treat legal analysts and the observers with respect and must skip remarks that they passed the rule ahead of time. They must not get involved in any legal advisory outside the court, or they must not connect with other legal advisors associated with the case. Judges usually pronounce a disagreement or pull back from the case when any relative or companions are involved in the case. Same is the case when the convict is the previous customer or have any relating terms with the judge. This is also same for business related, or any other companionship that may bias the result.Judges are associated with dodging customers or most group inclusion. The judge cannot offer lawful guidance in any regard as this may create a huge impact on the decision making. Judges are taboo for being paid to do things besides their legal obligations, yet they can acknowledge or set parameters to serve on imperial commissions and other authority examinations.Work SitedTalmadge, Philip A. “Understanding the Limits of Power: Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction Court Systems.” Seattle UL Rev. 22 (1998): 695.