Supreme Court Watch
- 04-12-2010 15:40
- Thread Starter
(Original post by gladders)
- 04-12-2010 16:20
Yes, although I think they tended not to vote if they could help it though they did get involved in debates from time to time. I think it's sensible, though, for judges to get involved - after all they will have to interpret the law when it is promulgated, and it's best to get clarification during the parliamentary process than after, when damage could be done from unintended consequences.
(Original post by haaaza23)
- 05-12-2010 12:51
So then, why is it considered to be important for the judiciary to be separate from the legislature, if, when serving a part of the legislature, it proved advantageous? Furthermore, Britain is hardly seen to have a separation of powers, but rather a fusion of powers..
It comes down essentially to national history and experiences, really. The UK's judges have a long-standing and strong culture of judicial independence in the face of crown, government and parliament.
Other countries are less fortunate in this regard.
America's constitution was framed at a time when nostalgia for England's 16th Century 'balanced' constitution was high - where the notion of the separation of powers comes from. America's constitution is essentially frozen in the 18th Century; the UK's has evolved and kept the good parts and abandoned the less good.