I agree with this thread (though there are real issues with the design of a scrutiny process - and a serious risk, very real with the current government - of executive interference).
https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1449431794349129728
The temptation is to pretend that court composition doesn’t matter and that judges don’t vary - on grounds that are “political” in any meaningful sense - in their approach to questions of how the law should apply in human rights cases or cases raising big societal questions.
The problem with that pretence is that it just isn’t true: and it’s always a bad idea to rely on a proposition that isn’t true.
The case for a bit of transparency and honesty about this is strong.
Would being more frank about judicial variation and “political” differences of approach harm the judiciary? I don’t think so, if well done. The hapless US model is not the only alternative.
Nor would it harm the case for judicial review and human rights review: which doesn’t (in my view) depend on a a claim that judges are apolitical mouthpieces of impersonal law. Which is just as well, because they aren’t.
(NB because this is Twitter - I should make it clear that you can and must expect judges to be outside party and personal politics. But everyone has political and ethical views, and the law is always raising political and ethical questions - even outside public law.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
