Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A UK supreme court? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Well what are your thoughts then? For, against, concerned, don't care?

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Well what are your thoughts then? For, against, concerned, don't care?
    We already have one - the House of Lords. And it does a damn fine job. We dont need this American nonsense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    We already have one - the House of Lords. And it does a damn fine job. We dont need this American nonsense.
    Yes I understand your comments and this is what I felt when I first heard about it. The House of Lords is a final court of appeal but in no ways is it supreme. They cannot declare statutes unconstitutional. Although I have always wondered the actual definition of a supreme court itself. Since there are several countries who have them but differ on their functions and powers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry I do not know much about this, could I ask, what do people feel is wrong with our judical system at the moment that warrents the need for a supreme court?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Sorry I do not know much about this, could I ask, what do people feel is wrong with our judical system at the moment that warrents the need for a supreme court?
    I am a law student and I feel although our legal system can go much better, there is no need for a supreme court personally. It's the fuse the functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Scottish people may well be against it because it is illegal under the Act (or Treaty) of Union 1707.

    Hopefully with more replies people who don't know much can be educated and so become involved I'm waiting for the Scot to join since he mentioned it in the other thread.

    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Yes I understand your comments and this is what I felt when I first heard about it. The House of Lords is a final court of appeal but in no ways is it supreme. They cannot declare statutes unconstitutional. Although I have always wondered the actual definition of a supreme court itself. Since there are several countries who have them but differ on their functions and powers.
    True, the House of Lords cant strike down an Act of Parliament (at least officially - it informally did in that Factortame case all law students harp on about), but do we really want an unelected judicial elite striking down the acts of the elected body that represents the will of the people?

    That's not democracy. It may be what happens in the USA, but that's not democracy.

    Also, in order for us to have a Supreme Court aka US style to start by-passing democracy we first will need a codified constitution, which, obviously, we don't have - and nor do we really need.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    True, the House of Lords cant strike down an Act of Parliament (at least officially - it informally did in that Factortame case all law students harp on about), but do we really want an unelected judicial elite striking down the acts of the elected body that represents the will of the people?

    That's not democracy. It may be what happens in the USA, but that's not democracy.

    Also, in order for us to have a Supreme Court aka US style to start by-passing democracy we first will need a codified constitution, which, obviously, we don't have - and nor do we really need.
    Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was struck down in Factortame because it was illegal under EU law. Thus, arguably, by striking down one Act of Parliament which does not comply with EU legislation, complies with another, namely the European Communities Act. I think Factortame had the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 quashed in the ECJ itself, rather than at the Lords.

    Ah so you don't think judges should make law? People say that they are unlected, true. So lets either get rid of the upper chamber or elect them by STv, or even both chambers, that would be more democratic, arguably.

    With the constitution we don't really need one but I am concerned about recent politician's behaviour towards the legal process though, especially Blunkett.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My my its like listening to my old politics AS classes on answering, Is Parliament Soverign?

    Course we need one, HOL yeh they do a great job blocking bills by the elcted chamber
    And why are you suggesting it shall not be elected, thats the purpose to replace the HOL WITH and elected 2nd Chamber.
    personally i stick with Desreli and support a 1 Chamber parliament
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    My my its like listening to my old politics AS classes on answering, Is Parliament Soverign?

    Course we need one, HOL yeh they do a great job blocking bills by the elcted chamber
    And why are you suggesting it shall not be elected, thats the purpose to replace the HOL WITH and elected 2nd Chamber.
    personally i stick with Desreli and support a 1 Chamber parliament
    We need one what exactly? A UK Supreme Court?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    We need one what exactly? A UK Supreme Court?
    A one chamber parliament, just the HOC therefore it is sovereign, well until we repeal the HRA '98
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    A one chamber parliament, just the HOC therefore it is sovereign, well until we repeal the HRA '98
    Why does the HRA have anything to do with whether member states are unicameral or otherwise?

    I wouldn't mind a unicameral legislature so much personally if it used a lot fairer voting system such as the closed list or STV. Nothing else will do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Why does the HRA have anything to do with whether member states are unicameral or otherwise?
    I was talking about soverignty
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Ah yes but surely the main cause in the reduction of sovereignty comes from the European Communities Act? The HRA is a considerably weak statute compared to its intentions.

    Is it actually true that under the new EU Constitution that all other member states will have to agree if say France wanted to leave the EU?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The HRA prevents the HOC to legistale upon such matters. For example it is impossible for the HOC to debate on reintroducing the death penalty due to it conflciting with protocol 10.
    We cannot introduce torture dispite in todays world this may be necessary to gain information from terror suspects.
    It was also illegal to publish the new names of the jamie buldger killers as it conflcited with their right to life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Well what are your thoughts then? For, against, concerned, don't care?
    Personally I think all laws should pass through two boddies. One elected by the people , and one composed of people who are educated to determine if it is in accordance with previous laws. Granted Britain has rather well educated politicians (in contradiction to Sweden were many politicians do not eaven have qualifications equivalent to A levels) but I think just in principle eaven the elected government should be bound under the legal process. This way one can make it more difficult for public opinion to go out of controll (as happened in Germany in the early nineteen-hundreds. ) Basicly it should not simply be down to the majority to decide. One should also make certain that the majority's decisions are in accordance with the law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The people choose not the polititions
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blood & Honour)
    The HRA prevents the HOC to legistale upon such matters. For example it is impossible for the HOC to debate on reintroducing the death penalty due to it conflciting with protocol 10.
    We cannot introduce torture dispite in todays world this may be necessary to gain information from terror suspects.
    It was also illegal to publish the new names of the jamie buldger killers as it conflcited with their right to life.
    Yes but Parliament can always revoke it. As with the death penalty I think it is disallowed by the EU. There was something said about new EU member states need to have the death penalty abolished in order to gain entry. While this is not a thread on the death penalty, I would like to point out that France were chopping people's heads off until the early 1980s whilst in the EU.

    Are you sure with the killers of Jamie Bulger it isn't privacy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It has nothing to do with being membership of the EU its incorperating the HRA.
    And those who say parliament may always repeal the ECA '73 well it isnt much of a choice really the only option would be to revoke alter then re join
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Do you really think they would let us back in if we did that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    a supreme court would most likely cause a constitutional crisis
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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

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