The overall impact of the Supreme Court Flashcards
Why is it impossible for the Supreme Court to strike down Acts of Parliament or force the executive to step down?
Because the UK does not have an entrenched, codified and supreme constitutional document in the way that the US does
What three main areas is the Supreme Court’s power limited to?
- Revisiting and reviewing earlier legal precedent established under judge made law
- Making ultra vires rulings where the court decided that public bodies have acted beyond their statutory authority
- Issuing declarations of incompatibility under the HRA
What prediction by Lord Phillips about the decision to create the Supreme Court has largely come true?
That it would be a change of form rather than substance
What does Lord Neuberger say about the work of the Supreme Court?
That it does not represent a significant departure from what the law lords would have done
What has been the only time when the Supreme Court has really broken new ground?
When it ruled against the prorogation of parliament
How did the Supreme Court justify their decision to strike down Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament?
They said that using the royal prerogative in this fashion did not respect the conventions of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability; since it was limiting parliament’s ability to act as a legislature with no valid reason during a significant part of the Brexit process. They therefore ruled that using the royal prerogative to prorogue parliament in this fashion was unlawful
What did the Guardian say about the Supreme Court striking down Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament?
They said that after 10 years the Supreme Court was finally confident and was flexing its muscles as a constitutional court after asserting the primacy of parliament
What did Vernon Bogdanor say about the Supreme Court striking down Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament?
He said that despite the constitutional and political significance of the decision, its not a huge jump and won’t turn us into countries like Germany or the US that have constitutional courts that can strike down legislation
Why do some people make the arguement that the Supreme Court has become too powerful?
Because there has been a blurring of the line between politicians making the law and judges simply applying it; with judges becoming little more than ‘politicians in robes’
Why is making the distinction that politicians make the law and judges simply apply it too simplistic when looking at the Supreme Court?
Because of the role that senior judges play in clarifying the law when disputes arise. The Supreme Court’s ability to establish precedent through common law can be seen as quasi-legislative
Define quasi-legislative
Where the Supreme Court’s interpretations can seem tantamount to a legislative change over time, even though parliament has made no change to the statute law
Why is it a flawed arguement to criticise the judiciary for being unelected?
- The Supreme Court has no more power than the law lords (also unelected) and no one complained then
- It is rare for judges to be elected internationally
- Judicial independence demands that judges should be able to dispense justice fairly without fear of being removed at the ballot box
What three things have helped enhance the authority of the Supreme Court in relation to the law lords that preceded it, despite the fact that they serve the same legal function?
- A more independent, less opaque appointments process
- A clearer separation of powers and actual physical separation between the legislature and the judiciary
- On ongoing process of demystification - with public visits, increased media attention and and clear website
