Judiciary and civil rights 6.5 Flashcards
(9 cards)
what are the four roles of the judiciary and how are the similar and different in the UK and US
- power
- scope
- final say
- attitude of judges
how do the US and UK judiciary differ when it comes to ‘power’
- both have the power role: to uphold the law and the constitution through its interpretation
US = through the constitution
UK = acts of parliament
how do the US and UK judiciary differ when it comes to ‘scope’
US = can overturn any piece of legislation, including the presidents, congress and states
UK = litch has no say in when trying to deem things as ultra vires
how do the US and UK judiciary differ when it comes to ‘final say’
US = impossible, only 27 done since US’ birth
UK = only an act of parliament can overturn what the court said
how do the US and UK judiciary differ when it comes to ‘attitude of judges’
- the vagueness of these constitutions is what increases or decreases the power of these judges
- bias is far more apparent in the US because of the appointment process
quick recap on the independence which both judiciaries experience
- exercise their power freely, without fear of political repercussions
US = formal process is prone to political bias (however, is also prone to swing justice)
UK = judicial appointments committee is independent, no political bias
_________________________________________________________
As US is more polarised, more prone to dificult and polarised topics ( like guns, abortion etc.) whereas UK experiences less of this
Rights ARE more effectively protected in the US
US = sovereign institution means it can deem any branch as ‘unconstitutional’
UK = do not have the power to overturn acts of parliament even if they restrict human rights (INCOMPATIBILITY)
_________________________________________________________
US = entrenchment means practically impossible to overturn it (protecting individuals against powerful elected politicians.)
UK = overturn a ruling that protects civil rights by passing a new act of parliament.
Rights ARE NOT more effectively protected in the US
- The UK Human Rights Act provides extensive legal protection of civil liberties.
- Parliament is unlikely to reject decisions made by the court that have protected civil rights. The Human Rights Act can be described as quasi-entrenched.
what could hinder these arguments (that Rights ARE more effectively protected in the US)
- need to be willing to do their interpretations of the Constitution correctly
- Shelby County v Holder = states needed federal approval (pre-clearance) before changing voting laws was outdated and unconstitutional MAJORITY RIGHTS
- Obergefell vs Hodges = legalising gay marriage MINORITY RIGHTS
