Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey all
    Apart from the Supreme Court providing a clear separation between the Judiciary and Executive, has it had any impact/significance on our constitution since it has been up and running?!
    Thanks!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to know what you find out, but my guess would be 'no'. The change was on the whole only cosmetic.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Check this website out: The Supreme Courts Affect on the Constitution
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Supreme Court means little, if it cannot interpret the constitution. The whole point is a judicial branch is to do just that, not just be the highest court of appeal.

    It's a good idea in theory, but lacks teeth/legitimacy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    The Supreme Court means little, if it cannot interpret the constitution. The whole point is a judicial branch is to do just that, not just be the highest court of appeal.

    It's a good idea in theory, but lacks teeth/legitimacy.
    No it's not. Supreme courts and judiciaries have wide and varying roles throughout Europe. It's not just in the UK where the judiciary has no constitutional oversight (though this is slowly changing, but I don't envision anything US-like).

    The whole point of the judiciary is to dispense justice to the public. some countries, by no means all, extend it to constitutional matters, but it is by no means a requirement.

    In fact I would consider the main drawback of the judiciary having constitutional oversight is that it politicises the judiciary. Britain's judiciary remains highly professional and well respected. The American judiciary is interlaced with politicised judges and law and order suffers from deep corruption.

    The problem is of course that the government established a supreme court, the name implying something like the US Supreme Court. In fact, as I said, the change was cosmetic - and was a colossal waste of money changing over.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Could one argue that the judiciary has become more independent, even though they have no extra powers, they're free from 'criticism' by minsters?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    Could one argue that the judiciary has become more independent, even though they have no extra powers, they're free from 'criticism' by minsters?
    You could argue it I suppose, though I've not seen evidence and I wouldn't know how you could argue it. Anyway, the judiciary is no more free from ministerial criticism than before.

    In fact the judiciary is, in theory at least, more at risk. They used to be fiscally insulated from government interference as the Apellates Committee was within the House of Lords, who funded it themselves. Now it is directly funded by the Ministry of Justice, and hence more directly at ministerial whim.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You could argue it I suppose, though I've not seen evidence and I wouldn't know how you could argue it. Anyway, the judiciary is no more free from ministerial criticism than before.

    In fact the judiciary is, in theory at least, more at risk. They used to be fiscally insulated from government interference as the Apellates Committee was within the House of Lords, who funded it themselves. Now it is directly funded by the Ministry of Justice, and hence more directly at ministerial whim.
    So really, it seems as though the introduction of the Supreme Court has had no positive impact on the constitution - though it's hard to predict the future of it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    So really, it seems as though the introduction of the Supreme Court has had no positive impact on the constitution - though it's hard to predict the future of it?
    That would be my assessment pretty much, yeah
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    No it's not. Supreme courts and judiciaries have wide and varying roles throughout Europe. It's not just in the UK where the judiciary has no constitutional oversight (though this is slowly changing, but I don't envision anything US-like).

    The whole point of the judiciary is to dispense justice to the public. some countries, by no means all, extend it to constitutional matters, but it is by no means a requirement.

    In fact I would consider the main drawback of the judiciary having constitutional oversight is that it politicises the judiciary. Britain's judiciary remains highly professional and well respected. The American judiciary is interlaced with politicised judges and law and order suffers from deep corruption.

    The problem is of course that the government established a supreme court, the name implying something like the US Supreme Court. In fact, as I said, the change was cosmetic - and was a colossal waste of money changing over.
    Could you not argue that the Supreme Court has already adopted a constitutional court 'style', in that even in 1978 (Appellate Commitee), 9 out of 10 cases concerned statutory construction?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Check this website out: The Supreme Courts Affect on the Constitution
    That would have been better if you hadn't mixed up 'Effect' and 'Affect' in your post haha...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    That would have been better if you hadn't mixed up 'Effect' and 'Affect' in your post haha...
    lol fail
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    Could you not argue that the Supreme Court has already adopted a constitutional court 'style', in that even in 1978 (Appellate Commitee), 9 out of 10 cases concerned statutory construction?
    Judicial review has indeed expanded and is likely to expand, for sure; but that's different from US-style judgements on major constitutional questions, which the UK Parliament would never permit the courts to have oversight over; and I think the courts would prefer to steer clear of it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    No it's not. Supreme courts and judiciaries have wide and varying roles throughout Europe. It's not just in the UK where the judiciary has no constitutional oversight (though this is slowly changing, but I don't envision anything US-like).

    The whole point of the judiciary is to dispense justice to the public. some countries, by no means all, extend it to constitutional matters, but it is by no means a requirement.

    In fact I would consider the main drawback of the judiciary having constitutional oversight is that it politicises the judiciary. Britain's judiciary remains highly professional and well respected. The American judiciary is interlaced with politicised judges and law and order suffers from deep corruption.

    The problem is of course that the government established a supreme court, the name implying something like the US Supreme Court. In fact, as I said, the change was cosmetic - and was a colossal waste of money changing over.
    The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the law. this is necessary in a model such as the US due to their values and political history. Laws need to be checked in order for them not to override the Constitution.

    I think it's an issue of mislabelling. I agree with removing the Law Lords, and a separate body being established, but the title of Supreme Court is misleading.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the law. this is necessary in a model such as the US due to their values and political history. Laws need to be checked in order for them not to override the Constitution.

    I think it's an issue of mislabelling. I agree with removing the Law Lords, and a separate body being established, but the title of Supreme Court is misleading.
    I fail to see how the introduction of the Supreme Court has had any positive effect on judicial independence. The roles of the judges have not dramatically changed, and as far as I'm aware, judges *could* still sit in Parliament if they wanted to.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    The purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the law. this is necessary in a model such as the US due to their values and political history. Laws need to be checked in order for them not to override the Constitution.

    I think it's an issue of mislabelling. I agree with removing the Law Lords, and a separate body being established, but the title of Supreme Court is misleading.
    It is indeed misleading, and ironically the government said it was doing the change to clarify the role of the judges - completely missing the fact that a Supreme Court would be confused with its more famous American counterpart.

    You're correct, the courts are there to interpret the law; but then it's not a universal maxim by any means that the judiciary interprets constitutional law. France certainly doesn't do it either, for example. The British constitution considers Parliament to be sovereign - the idea being that if the constitution is to be changed, it should be changed by those who are elected and accountable to the public for those changes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    I fail to see how the introduction of the Supreme Court has had any positive effect on judicial independence. The roles of the judges have not dramatically changed, and as far as I'm aware, judges *could* still sit in Parliament if they wanted to.
    If I understand the law correctly, the convention will remain that future Supreme Court justices will receive peerages and sit in the Lords once they cease to be judges.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    If I understand the law correctly, the convention will remain that future Supreme Court justices will receive peerages and sit in the Lords once they cease to be judges.
    I don't think they do continue to receive peerages...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haaaza23)
    I don't think they do continue to receive peerages...
    I stand corrected though there's nothing to say they can't get them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I stand corrected though there's nothing to say they can't get them.
    Haha. Also, is there any evidence which shows how the law lords, when in the Appellate Committee, were directly involved in the legislature?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.