Final answer:
When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially and are not protected by qualified or limited immunity.
Step-by-step explanation:
When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially. As a result, they are not protected by qualified or limited immunity. Judges are expected to follow the Constitution and the law regardless of their personal preferences or policy beliefs. This means that when interpreting and applying statutes, judges must focus on the legal principles and objective meaning of the law rather than subjective factors.
Judges are expected to act impartially and follow the law and the Constitution in their rulings. The judiciary protects individual rights and balances power with the legislative and executive branches, but their effects rely on these branches for enforcement.
The concept that 'judges of all courts do not act judicially' when enforcing mere statutes suggests that there is a distinction between judicial immunity afforded to judges during judicial acts versus administrative or legislative actions they may undertake. However, it is important to remember that judges are generally expected to follow the Constitution and the law despite their policy preferences. The judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting laws and ensuring justice.
The judicial branch is considered by many to be better suited to protect individual rights than the elected branches of the government because it operates independently from political influences and is bound by constitutional review. This implies a balance between the different branches of government. Yet, judicial rulings also depend on their adequate enforcement by the legislative and executive branches to be effective in the real world. The courts, therefore, hold an important place in maintaining the rule of law but are also limited by their dependence on other branches for the execution of their mandates.