Small quibbles aside (of which there are a number), I rather agree with this open letter. A study of 'cause lawyering' in the United States points to the dangers of elevating the power of judges above those of politicians. thetimes.co.uk/article/the-la…
Quibble 1. No one in the UK is (presently) asserting that the rule of law triumphs over Parliamentary Sovereignty. There are contexts in which we might have that discussion but the Internal Market Bill is not amongst them.
Quibble 2. That our constitution (usually) ranks Parliamentary Sovereignty above the rule of law does not mean the Internal Market Bill is a good idea. It just means that (generally) it's better for those with a democratic mandate to make choices rather than those without one.
Quibble 3. Judges in the UK are amongst the weakest in the world. That's not a reflection on their general character. It's a reflection on the fact that we have little or no higher law of basic norms against which they can test the acts of Parliament...
... this means that those who talk of judicial activism (which obviously is capable of happening in theory) as a real problem in the UK are talking garbage.
Quibble 4. Quite what it means to have Parliamentary Sovereignty, no higher law, and a constitutionally feeble Upper Chamber is a question I very much hope we never have to answer.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
