Turn on thread page Beta

B1351 - Judicial Dismissal Bill 2018 watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    I don't think rigid separation of powers is necessary in our judicial system, the current system works because it balances judicial independence with parliamentary oversight.
    Here, here.

    Surely we must defend the independent sovereignty of our parliament and encourage oversight of the judiciary system.

    This bill is in support of authoritarianism rather than democracy, by restricting the powers of the elected government favouring unelected judges.

    A strong nay from me
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, we need judges that are independent from the legislative branch to provide effective checks and balances on the power of the state.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye from me too

    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    Here, here.

    Surely we must defend the independent sovereignty of our parliament and encourage oversight of the judiciary system.

    This bill is in support of authoritarianism rather than democracy, by restricting the powers of the elected government favouring unelected judges.

    A strong nay from me
    How many people know they are electing people who can remove their judges, though? Not really a major part of manifestos is it?

    It isn't supporting authoritarianism, the bill is about controlling how much power we give those we elect. If anything, giving the parliament too much power is much more authoritarian than giving them too little...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    I don't think rigid separation of powers is necessary in our judicial system, the current system works because it balances judicial independence with parliamentary oversight.
    So the honourable member supports having no separation of powers?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    Here, here.

    Surely we must defend the independent sovereignty of our parliament and encourage oversight of the judiciary system.

    This bill is in support of authoritarianism rather than democracy, by restricting the powers of the elected government favouring unelected judges.

    A strong nay from me
    This does not support authoritarianism. This supports only the independence of the judiciary. Judges must be free to make decisions according to the law, not what the government wishes! This prevents judges being able to be removed for doing their jobs.

    If supporting a separation of powers is authoritarian, I have lost faith in you and your liberalism!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Thrillanthropist)
    Aye from me too

    How many people know they are electing people who can remove their judges, though? Not really a major part of manifestos is it?

    It isn't supporting authoritarianism, the bill is about controlling how much power we give those we elect. If anything, giving the parliament too much power is much more authoritarian than giving them too little...
    But yet giving more power to unelected judges. On what basis does this bill allow for parliament to get rid of poor and unworthy judges from destroying our democracy. Pretty self-explanatory - None.

    (Original post by Vitiate)
    This does not support authoritarianism. This supports only the independence of the judiciary. Judges must be free to make decisions according to the law, not what the government wishes! This prevents judges being able to be removed for doing their jobs.

    If supporting a separation of powers is authoritarian, I have lost faith in you and your liberalism!
    So you advocate the independence of the judiciary but not the independent sovereignty of parliament.
    Sounds like hypocrisy to me?

    What about judges who are continuously doing a poor and unethical job in office, on what basis can the government get rid of them.

    Surely this house agrees with me that parliament should have overall power in the country, not unelected judges. This bill does the latter.

    It's still a nay from me.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    So you advocate the independence of the judiciary but not the independent sovereignty of parliament.
    Sounds like hypocrisy to me?

    What about judges who are continuously doing a poor and unethical job in office, on what basis can the government get rid of them.

    Surely this house agrees with me that parliament should have overall power in the country, not unelected judges. This bill does the latter.

    It's still a nay from me.
    1. This does NOT, and I repeat, does NOT give extra powers to unelected judges.
    2. This does NOT effect, in my view, the sovereignty of Parliament. This bill only ensures that the elected representatives do not abuse their power against those whose jobs it is to enforce the law.
    3. You are misguided and delusional to think that judges that do a poor job aren't removed, you are wrong! I think you need to learn about the subject matter before you make yourself look foolish.
    4. As I said above, this does not give more power to judges. This ensures that judges can be free to make decisions according to what the law tells them, not what government (which normally constitutes a majority of Parliament) wants. This is true separation of powers at work.

    You're delusional, clearly illiterate and incapable of understanding that the separation of powers is not an authoritarian ideal. It is a liberal ideal. And you have shown that you are not a Liberal. That you support government intervention in the operation of the Judiciary and you do not believe in true justice.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    So the honourable member supports having no separation of powers?
    I support judicial independence within reason and i think parliament should be able to remove bad judges as a last resort; current law works perfectly well imo.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    I support judicial independence within reason and i think parliament should be able to remove bad judges as a last resort; current law works perfectly well imo.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one
    It’s either independent or not there is no middle ground.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    It’s either independent or not there is no middle ground.
    The England and Wales justice system is a middle ground between the two extremes and has been for centuries.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    The England and Wales justice system is a middle ground between the two extremes and has been for centuries.
    If I say you can do whatever you want as long as I don’t disagree with it are you free?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    If I say you can do whatever you want as long as I don’t disagree with it are you free?
    Judges make decisions the powers that be don't agree with all the time and the judges don't get into trouble, are you saying UK judges are controlled by the government?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    Judges make decisions the powers that be don't agree with all the time and the judges don't get into trouble, are you saying UK judges are controlled by the government?
    Could parliament remove a judge because they don’t like his decision yes or no?

    If there is a major hole in the system like that you don’t wait until it’s been exploited you cover it straight away as the effects could be devastating
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Could parliament remove a judge because they don’t like his decision yes or no?

    If there is a major hole in the system like that you don’t wait until it’s been exploited you cover it straight away as the effects could be devastating
    Only if you can find 323 Mp's and 300+ lords prepared to do it.

    When was the last time parliament removed a judge from office and was the judge good at his job?

    Our justice system works and has worked for centuries, let's keep it as it is.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Can I distance myself from the idea of 'parliamentary oversight' of judges?

    The issue is that this either is useless, as it is capable of repeal by simple majority, or it is a significant restraint on the sovereignty of parliament.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    Only if you can find 323 Mp's and 300+ lords prepared to do it.

    When was the last time parliament removed a judge from office and was the judge good at his job?

    Our justice system works and has worked for centuries, let's keep it as it is.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree.
    They said that before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. But Blair changed it anyway.

    And actually, no, the courts as we know them have only existed for one hundred and forty eight years, since the Judicature Acts, . Before that, you had the courts of equity and the courts of common law. They reformed that by fusing them together. So don't give me the "our system has worked for centuries".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Can I distance myself from the idea of 'parliamentary oversight' of judges?

    The issue is that this either is useless, as it is capable of repeal by simple majority, or it is a significant restraint on the sovereignty of parliament.
    The idea here, is that although it is capable of repeal by simple majority, no government would have enough political capital, in practice, to get away with such a repeal without facing a reprisal at the ballot box.

    Don’t see how this limits parliamentary sovereignty when judges would still be unable to strike down any act of parliament under the terms of this bill, all it does, is reaffirm the independence of the judiciary as arbiters and interpreters; strengthening our (really quite weak) checks and balances on the power of the state in this country.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The idea here, is that although it is capable of repeal by simple majority, no government would have enough political capital, in practice, to get away with such a repeal without facing a reprisal at the ballot box.

    Don’t see how this limits parliamentary sovereignty when judges would still be unable to strike down any act of parliament under the terms of this bill, all it does, is reaffirm the independence of the judiciary as arbiters and interpreters; strengthening our (really quite weak) checks and balances on the power of the state in this country.
    Hear, hear!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    They said that before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. But Blair changed it anyway.

    And actually, no, the courts as we know them have only existed for one hundred and forty eight years, since the Judicature Acts, . Before that, you had the courts of equity and the courts of common law. They reformed that by fusing them together. So don't give me the "our system has worked for centuries".
    I supported the constitutional reform act 2005, i just don't think we need this act.

    one hundred and forty eight years spread over three centuries and the system still worked when we had the courts of equity and the courts of common law.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 17, 2018
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?

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.