A level Politics - Judges / Supreme Court powers over government

Watch
Enzo817
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1
Hey,
I've been struggling to come up with four points for the following question:
"Evaluate the view that judges should not exercise control over the power of government"
I have one 'FOR' argument - Judges should not exercise control over the power of gov.t because the Supreme Court judges are unelected and unrepresentative.
and one 'AGAINST' argument - Judges should exercise control over the power of gov.t because judges do actually protect the democratic rights of the population through upholding the rule of law through judicial review.

If anybody could help me in anyway, I will be grateful. Thanks.
0
reply
Keir Starmer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 months ago
#2
(Original post by Enzo817)
Hey,
I've been struggling to come up with four points for the following question:
"Evaluate the view that judges should not exercise control over the power of government"
I have one 'FOR' argument - Judges should not exercise control over the power of gov.t because the Supreme Court judges are unelected and unrepresentative.
and one 'AGAINST' argument - Judges should exercise control over the power of gov.t because judges do actually protect the democratic rights of the population through upholding the rule of law through judicial review.

If anybody could help me in anyway, I will be grateful. Thanks.
AGAINST: judiciary is a form of checks and balances- prevents one part of govt having to
much power.

Judges are more impartial so they can exercise better judgment
0
reply
mattlcfc
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 months ago
#3
Is this UK/US?
As you have pointed out, the unelected nature for the judiciary means that they have reduced accountability. Examples are Baroness Hale (The only women judge in the UK Court, who attended Private School and Durham University - I think.
Other for could also be that due to their upbringing, they may not be able to sympathise with people who might be working class. This brings your argument away from accountability and more to personal views. This also ties in well if its a US court too, eg some courts might be more liberal or conservative than others.
Maybe refer to judicial neutrality and judicial independence and the factors that threaten that. For example, the fact that they have high job security may impact their decision making.

Against - Judges are able to protect the citizens' rights, as you have said, through common law and a legal precedent.
Judicial neutrality. Judges have to train to be a qualifying practioner for 15 years so it is thought that they will be able to be fair and subsequently provide a good check and balance over the executive. Judges also have money from a consolidated fund too, so they are less likely to be bribed by the government which further provides that they should have control over the government.

I would look to be synoptic by linking it in with the executive - legislative through the check and balance system.

I hope this helps.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
#4
Report 8 months ago
#4
why do you need four points, is that a requirement or something you came up with?
0
reply
Enzo817
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#5
(Original post by mattlcfc)
Is this UK/US?
As you have pointed out, the unelected nature for the judiciary means that they have reduced accountability. Examples are Baroness Hale (The only women judge in the UK Court, who attended Private School and Durham University - I think.
Other for could also be that due to their upbringing, they may not be able to sympathise with people who might be working class. This brings your argument away from accountability and more to personal views. This also ties in well if its a US court too, eg some courts might be more liberal or conservative than others.
Maybe refer to judicial neutrality and judicial independence and the factors that threaten that. For example, the fact that they have high job security may impact their decision making.

Against - Judges are able to protect the citizens' rights, as you have said, through common law and a legal precedent.
Judicial neutrality. Judges have to train to be a qualifying practioner for 15 years so it is thought that they will be able to be fair and subsequently provide a good check and balance over the executive. Judges also have money from a consolidated fund too, so they are less likely to be bribed by the government which further provides that they should have control over the government.

I would look to be synoptic by linking it in with the executive - legislative through the check and balance system.

I hope this helps.
Thank you! I appreciate your help. This question is about the UK court.
0
reply
Enzo817
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#6
(Original post by Joleee)
why do you need four points, is that a requirement or something you came up with?
Yes it is a requirement. My school's politics department expects 4 points for each essay question we are given, which can be tough to come up with for some essay questions.
0
reply
Enzo817
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#7
(Original post by proudmonkey)
AGAINST: judiciary is a form of checks and balances- prevents one part of govt having to
much power.

Judges are more impartial so they can exercise better judgment
Thanks
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (0)
0%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (3)
17.65%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (10)
58.82%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (3)
17.65%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (1)
5.88%

Watched Threads

View All