• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The US Supreme Court

Peter said:
The applicants are selected by a neutral committee rather than by a political choice in the UK.
There's a completely different ideal about the UK supreme court than the US version as it's very low key and about pure law rather than theatre.

While the UK version has the same name they aren't the political football the US version is and it was designed to be apolitical.
One party can't stack the deck and it isn't about political point-scoring.
Click to expand...
Who determines this "neutral" committee? If you don't think it is political, you are deluding yourself.

One party can only "stack the deck" in the US if that party has a super-majority in the Senate and control of the White House. That would very effectively eliminate any opposition with regard to judicial appointments.

Despite all their bluster and talk about "stacking the court" you don't see the Democratic Party making changes to the Supreme Court. They never could as long as the filibuster exists and they have fewer than a super-majority in the House and Senate. As usual, Democrats act like two year old petulant children that throw tantrums whenever they can't get their way, but in the end they are completely meaningless.
 
Peter said:
The applicants are selected by a neutral committee rather than by a political choice in the UK.
There's a completely different ideal about the UK supreme court than the US version as it's very low key and about pure law rather than theatre.

While the UK version has the same name they aren't the political football the US version is and it was designed to be apolitical.
One party can't stack the deck and it isn't about political point-scoring.
Click to expand...

By what method or authority is the "neutral committee" empaneled?
 
Glitch said:
Who determines this "neutral" committee? If you don't think it is political, you are deluding yourself.

One party can only "stack the deck" in the US if that party has a super-majority in the Senate and control of the White House. That would very effectively eliminate any opposition with regard to judicial appointments.

Despite all their bluster and talk about "stacking the court" you don't see the Democratic Party making changes to the Supreme Court. They never could as long as the filibuster exists and they have fewer than a super-majority in the House and Senate. As usual, Democrats act like two year old petulant children that throw tantrums whenever they can't get their way, but in the end they are completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

Erm, this is all a tad legalese and not clear so I'll leave it to you to in interpret but this is what it says.

It is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to convene a selection commission: this is usually done by way of a letter to the President of the Court who chairs the selection commission. Under changes introduced through the Crime and Courts Act 2013 the Deputy President is no longer a member of a selection commission. Instead the President has to nominate a senior judge from anywhere in the United Kingdom, but that judge cannot be a Justice of the Supreme Court. In addition there is a member of each of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales, the Judicial Appointments Board in Scotland, and the Judicial Appointments Commission in Northern Ireland. At least one of those representatives has to be a lay person. Nominations are made by the Chairman of the relevant Commission/Board.

Under changes introduced in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, if a commission is convened for the selection of a person to be recommended for appointment as President of the Court then the out-going President may not be a member of the commission. In those circumstances the commission is to be chaired by one of its non-legally qualified members.

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 also includes provisions in relation to diversity where candidates for judicial office are of equal merit. Under Section 9 of Schedule 13 of the Act, for appointments to the Supreme Court, where two persons are of equal merit Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 does not apply, but this does not prevent the commission from preferring one candidate over the other for the purpose of increasing diversity within the group of persons who are judges of the Court.

In short erm, maybe I'm thick but it doesn't appear to be a political appointee but I could well be very wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html
 
Peter said:
Erm, this is all a tad legalese and not clear so I'll leave it to you to in interpret but this is what it says.

It is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to convene a selection commission: this is usually done by way of a letter to the President of the Court who chairs the selection commission. Under changes introduced through the Crime and Courts Act 2013 the Deputy President is no longer a member of a selection commission. Instead the President has to nominate a senior judge from anywhere in the United Kingdom, but that judge cannot be a Justice of the Supreme Court. In addition there is a member of each of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales, the Judicial Appointments Board in Scotland, and the Judicial Appointments Commission in Northern Ireland. At least one of those representatives has to be a lay person. Nominations are made by the Chairman of the relevant Commission/Board.

Under changes introduced in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, if a commission is convened for the selection of a person to be recommended for appointment as President of the Court then the out-going President may not be a member of the commission. In those circumstances the commission is to be chaired by one of its non-legally qualified members.

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 also includes provisions in relation to diversity where candidates for judicial office are of equal merit. Under Section 9 of Schedule 13 of the Act, for appointments to the Supreme Court, where two persons are of equal merit Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 does not apply, but this does not prevent the commission from preferring one candidate over the other for the purpose of increasing diversity within the group of persons who are judges of the Court.

In short erm, maybe I'm thick but it doesn't appear to be a political appointee but I could well be very wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing a detailed answer to my question. That does not happen often on this forum, and I want to let you know that I appreciate it.

Both the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Court are political appointees. Although, all the Lord Chancellor can do is to convene a selection commission, they have no actual voice in the selection. That falls to the President of the Court, who very much can influence not just the commission, but also the judges that are selected. The only time the President of the Court can't use their influence is when they are being replaced.

Hopefully this commission can only make nominations that must be either confirmed or rejected by either the Lower House or the House of Lords. If Parliament has the final say on the nomination, then your process for selecting Supreme Court justices appears to be better than ours. There is still lots of politics involved, but it at least makes the appearance of being less partisan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom