The UK Supreme Court

Mods please don't shove this thread in the graveyard that is "Debate and Discussion"!

What do you think about the proposed bill to abolish the House of Lords and the position of Lord Chancellor, creating a US-style supreme court? This is supposedly to separate politics from the law, but surely this would leave the judicial system vulnerable to court-packing by Labour, similar to Roosevelt's attempts?

Mods please don't shove this thread in the graveyard that is "Debate and Discussion"!

What do you think about the proposed bill to abolish the House of Lords and the position of Lord Chancellor, creating a US-style supreme court? This is supposedly to separate politics from the law, but surely this would leave the judicial system vulnerable to court-packing by Labour, similar to Roosevelt's attempts?

Mods please don't shove this thread in the graveyard that is "Debate and Discussion"!

What do you think about the proposed bill to abolish the House of Lords and the position of Lord Chancellor, creating a US-style supreme court? This is supposedly to separate politics from the law, but surely this would leave the judicial system vulnerable to court-packing by Labour, similar to Roosevelt's attempts?

Mods please don't shove this thread in the graveyard that is "Debate and Discussion"!

What do you think about the proposed bill to abolish the House of Lords and the position of Lord Chancellor, creating a US-style supreme court? This is supposedly to separate politics from the law, but surely this would leave the judicial system vulnerable to court-packing by Labour, similar to Roosevelt's attempts?

Forgive me if i sound stupid....but with my limited knowledge of the legislative system...would this bill not have to be passed through the House of Lords before it come become a proper law?? Surely they wouldn't allow it?

G

They could veto it for one year (provided it wasn't part of a manifesto as they then become tied to the Sailsbury convention) but not after that.

Does the same apply with Top-up fees then...the house of Lords can delay it for a year but no longer?

G

Mods please don't shove this thread in the graveyard that is "Debate and Discussion"!

What do you think about the proposed bill to abolish the House of Lords and the position of Lord Chancellor, creating a US-style supreme court? This is supposedly to separate politics from the law, but surely this would leave the judicial system vulnerable to court-packing by Labour, similar to Roosevelt's attempts?

Forgive me if i sound stupid....but with my limited knowledge of the legislative system...would this bill not have to be passed through the House of Lords before it come become a proper law?? Surely they wouldn't allow it?

G

Blair, once again, is on a power trip.. Lord Woolfe's speech was brilliant <applaudes> I'm glad someone in the judiciary is able to defend the system as well as he does.

Justify your opinion please, before making rash comments.

I agree with pretty much everything Woolf said. The asylum bill is a disgusting piece of legislation.. Blunkett's introduction of it is worrying in itself, but to think that a politician like himself will have a say in judicial appointments is even worse! In theory a seperation of powers is desirable, but what Blair is suggesting means that Parliament will have more power of the judiciary.. and this is what they call democracy? Furthermore, the UK will not be respected internationally and its pioneering stance with regards to Law will be lost if these changes do go ahead.

Forgive me if i sound stupid....but with my limited knowledge of the legislative system...would this bill not have to be passed through the House of Lords before it come become a proper law?? Surely they wouldn't allow it?

G

Just to clarify: they're not planning at all to abolish the House of Lords, only move the Law Lords to a new Supreme Court.

What exactly is so American about new Supreme Court being proposed? Whilst it obviously shares the name with it's American would-be counterpart, as far as I know it certainly won't be the superior of the three arms of government - able to disregard the legislature in some cases - but instead would be rather the opposite.

Well, you just answered your own question. The US Supreme Court is a constitutional court (obviously the highest in the land) and decides constitutional matters. It's jurisdiction extends to finding law (in whatever form) unconstitutional and striking down accordingly. That is the whole function of the US Supreme court and presumably would be the function of a UK Supreme court.

However, I'm bound to ask this. Without a written constitution of entrenched rights on what basis can something be considered unconstitutional?

But as I say, doesn't the existing House of Lords do that anyway - it does after all only hear cases deemed to be of extreme national importance, and effectively have the power to strike down any existing common law - except it's powers of judicial review don't extend to statutes coming directly from Parliament; I am quite sure that the proposed new Supreme Court wouldn't have that power - hence Lord Woolf's forboding omen of a "second class supreme court" being created.

Unconstitutional tends to be defined as breaking with very old parliamentary traditions (eg. the Lords rejecting the budget of 1909 which led to the first Parliament Act) and practically anything that seems vaguely undemocratic, or going against the general principle separation of powers. That last point is certainly open to debate though - one wonders how much respect we have for the separation of powers when our entire executive seems to reside exclusively within the legislative. This of course is the reason currently given for the proposed reform (or rather the destruction) of the Lords in their judicial capacity - the 10 Law Lords, who are part of the Lords in their legislative capacity also, technically have the right to vote. However, they never really do and indeed only seem to speak in the Lords when the functions of the courts is being discussed. Of course, seen as the Law Lords will probably break with tradition and vote against the Bill (presumably they want to continue to sit in the Upper House!) the Government's argument will probably be strengthened.

I oppose it all.