The Student Room Group

Should the UK dump Parliamentary Sovereignty?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by nulli tertius
I think Bush v Gore is a poor example of a valid point. In the 2000 Presidential election the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error. Almost everyone assumed that the courts were the proper places to try disputes in a very tight election and the Supreme Court said "no". As the courts couldn't be certain they would produce a right answer, they shouldn't interfere.

It is very noticeable that when media organisations finished their own post-event recounts; if the courts had conducted the limited recount the Democrats had asked for, the Republicans won but if the courts had conducted the greater recount the Republicans sought if there was to be a recount at all, the Democrats won. There was no single right answer.

Much better examples are the way that the political battles over gun control and abortion are fought in the courts and not through the ballot box.


Ah, you're right. I forgot that this was over how the recount should be conducted. I just remembered the media talking about the Supreme Court deciding the election. That was the first thing that I thought of, although it wasn't the best example.

But yes, it's actually unnerving to go through a history of Supreme Court cases and see just how many of the laws we have today, deciding major issues, were effectively imposed by those 9 appointed justices. There's actually no clear mechanism to override the Supreme Court aside from amending the constitution, which is nearly impossible to do, and doesn't guarantee that the Court will respect what the amendment was intended to mean. In fact, they go out of their way to twist the meaning to what they want, like all lawyers do.

If there's a 2/3rds majority in Congress, they can override a veto. But they can't do anything at all about the Supreme Court, even if the vote is unanimous.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by jamestg
No. I'm sorry sovereignty must be held in accountable hands.


Why? The lazy, apathetic electorate never hold them accountable anyway.
I very much like the idea of certain human rights and constitutional principles being guaranteed to every Indivudal against the government and are therefore safeguarded by the courts which means no populist government can start attacking such rights.

Some decisions such as the administration of justice and protection of human and civil rights are better left to impartial, independent and forensic judges rather than populist politicians.

*
Original post by Bornblue
I very much like the idea of certain human rights and constitutional principles being guaranteed to every Indivudal against the government and are therefore safeguarded by the courts which means no populist government can start attacking such rights.

Some decisions such as the administration of justice and protection of human and civil rights are better left to impartial, independent and forensic judges rather than populist politicians.

*


That's how it's supposed to work in theory. But in practice, judges are not even close to being impartial and don't check their politics at the door. Judicial votes are often along party lines, and the death of a justice is always seen as a political opportunity. The bodies that appoint them tend to pick activist judges. If there were a mechanism to ensure that judges were actually impartial and unaligned, it might work... but that's not how things are.

Of course it sounds like a good idea when you think of judges as impartial and politicians as biased and partisan... but the truth is there's almost no such thing as an impartial judge these days.
Original post by jeremy1988
That's how it's supposed to work in theory. But in practice, judges are not even close to being impartial and don't check their politics at the door. Judicial votes are often along party lines, and the death of a justice is always seen as a political opportunity. The bodies that appoint them tend to pick activist judges. If there were a mechanism to ensure that judges were actually impartial and unaligned, it might work... but that's not how things are.

Of course it sounds like a good idea when you think of judges as impartial and politicians as biased and partisan... but the truth is there's almost no such thing as an impartial judge these days.


Of course no one can ever be totally imperial but I really am quite fond of our Supreme Court and they give impartiality a very good attempt. Far more so than politicians.

Judicial votes here are not on party lines because unlike in the USA, they are not selected by the president and approved by congress.

That means judges here do not have to appeal to politicians or party lines. In fact the biggest threat in recent years to our civil and human rights has been the government, such as the snoopers charter and Blairs indefinite detention without trial.

I really like the idea of having a set of human and civil rights guaranteed to the public entrenched in law, out of reach of the parliament and protected and safeguarded from any government.*

The German system would be the ideal one.*
*
Original post by JordanL_
Why? The lazy, apathetic electorate never hold them accountable anyway.


Okay so completely ignore what happened in 1997, 2005 and 2010 then...
Original post by jamestg
Okay so completely ignore what happened in 1997, 2005 and 2010 then...


The point is that we can't really 'hold the government to account' like some pretend we can.

All we can do is decide to hold a single MP to account every five years and that largely becomes irrelevant if one lives in a safe seat.

*
Reply 27
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Original post by jeremy1988
Given that judicial activism is inevitable in this day and age, judges should be elected and have terms. They shouldn't be appointed for life. It means any president that gets to fill a vacancy gets to control the political direction of the country in this indirect manner until his appointee dies or quits. That seems a little ridiculous...

Why the US doesn't have an independent judicial appointments system really is beyond me. In this country, if there was even a whiff of political interference in the appointment of judges it'd raise merry hell.
Original post by L i b
Why the US doesn't have an independent judicial appointments system really is beyond me. In this country, if there was even a whiff of political interference in the appointment of judges it'd raise merry hell.
I agree. Judges shouldn't be elected though as that would lead them to trying to appeal to certain groups, often through their political stances.

I like how our Supreme Court judges are more able to be independent and impartial without having to follow any party line or determine their views based on sections the electorate.
Reply 29
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Original post by Bornblue
I agree. Judges shouldn't be elected though as that would lead them to trying to appeal to certain groups, often through their political stances.

I like how our Supreme Court judges are more able to be independent and impartial without having to follow any party line or determine their views based on sections the electorate.


Yes, and I think the much-maligned judicial activism is pushed to the side not only by the independence of judges but by the strengths of our parliamentary democracy. If anything, most of that issue in the UK arises from ECJ and ECHR cases.
Original post by Grand High Witch
The soldiers every time.


Soldiers willing to slaughter their own people , not in this day and age.
Original post by TercioOfParma
Well, if that happens we could rebel and instate a new government if we really needed to like happened in 1642. 100k soldiers vs 70m people, I wonder who would win.


YES! I wish that would happen :smile:

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you