As someone who didn’t fraternise with law students at university this is all new parlance to me. My understanding was that the Supreme Court is “woke” and “America-brained” while the Law Lords are “trad” and “based”. This article has given me the impression that the Law lords were already woke and that the supreme court is the same as the lords but with more expensive furniture and a slush fund for Hale’s broaches. Is this fair?
Found this all rather fascinating. It seems to me that the best defence against courts going down this route is to ensure, well in advance, that Parliament is armed with the means to put the courts back in their box should they try to do anything like this. It probably means having a standard legislative process for rebutting (setting aside) court findings so that specific findings of the court that are unwanted can be unwound within a couple of weeks of the court concluding. This strikes me a rather a good idea anyway, as it gives the government a means of rebutting the findings of the ECHR.
More troubling would be the other thing that the government requires, which is some form of executive power that will do its bidding even if the courts say the bidding shouldn't happen. Not sure I'm ready for that, personally.
Meanwhile, ensuring lawyers and judges are trained in the principles espoused here is surely necessary. If in 25 years you want a cadre of senior judges who believe in the sovereignty of parliament and that human rights are a good thing but shouldn't live in our constitution but rather should be discovered via common law, you need to start training judges appropriately now.
As someone who didn’t fraternise with law students at university this is all new parlance to me. My understanding was that the Supreme Court is “woke” and “America-brained” while the Law Lords are “trad” and “based”. This article has given me the impression that the Law lords were already woke and that the supreme court is the same as the lords but with more expensive furniture and a slush fund for Hale’s broaches. Is this fair?
Found this all rather fascinating. It seems to me that the best defence against courts going down this route is to ensure, well in advance, that Parliament is armed with the means to put the courts back in their box should they try to do anything like this. It probably means having a standard legislative process for rebutting (setting aside) court findings so that specific findings of the court that are unwanted can be unwound within a couple of weeks of the court concluding. This strikes me a rather a good idea anyway, as it gives the government a means of rebutting the findings of the ECHR.
More troubling would be the other thing that the government requires, which is some form of executive power that will do its bidding even if the courts say the bidding shouldn't happen. Not sure I'm ready for that, personally.
Meanwhile, ensuring lawyers and judges are trained in the principles espoused here is surely necessary. If in 25 years you want a cadre of senior judges who believe in the sovereignty of parliament and that human rights are a good thing but shouldn't live in our constitution but rather should be discovered via common law, you need to start training judges appropriately now.
Scholarly!