UK Supreme Court to be sworn in

[lx4]

Judges who will form the highest court in the United Kingdom are set to be sworn in on Thursday in a major milestone in British legal history.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are replacing the Law Lords as the final court of appeal for almost all cases in the United Kingdom.

The court is independent of Parliament and will hear the most important cases.

Lord Phillips, President of the Supreme Court, said the change in their form was important for judicial openness.

The £59m Supreme Court, which sits opposite Parliament in London, opens after it was first announced six years ago. Its first 11 members were until last month the Law Lords who would have otherwise heard the same cases in the House of Lords.

But the constitutional change that led to the Supreme Court's creation means that Parliament's lawmakers and the judges charged with overseeing legislation, have finally been separated.

The change brings the UK into line with many other countries around the world. The new court will act as the final court of appeal in all matters other than criminal cases in Scotland.

Lord Phillips said: "This is the last step in the separation of powers in this country. We have come to it fairly gently and gradually, but we have come to the point where the judges are completely separated from the legislature and executive.

bbc

[vicious796]

Grats Britain? Took you long enough?

[molbjerg]

And America is a country that needed to draw up a constitution to define their rights, whereas we have done a better job just working off intangible morals and "what we think is right for our country".

I always find it amusing when Americans slate english politics.

[vicious796]

And America is a country that needed to draw up a constitution to define their rights, whereas we have done a better job just working off intangible morals and "what we think is right for our country".

I always find it amusing when Americans slate english politics.

Intangible morals like raping women in Ireland?

Yeah, that worked out well for you... you know... with that empire crumbling thing...

[molbjerg]

Not that I like to jump on stupid internet memes, but


/facepalm

[vicious796]

Stating that the United States drafting up a public document clearly showing what its citizens rights are is bad is more retarded than what I just said in humor.

[lx4]

Stating that the United States drafting up a public document clearly showing what its citizens rights are is bad is more retarded than what I just said in humor.

I agree with you that some sort of bill of rights is a good thing. But its not an obvious statement, the idea of protecting individual rights in a constitution is often opposed from the left on the basis that individual rights can stand in the way of whats best for the community. Not having such protections would make it easier for parliament to ignore individuals rights when its deemed necessary. Freedom of speech can be used to defend hate speech, freedom of religion to defend homophobia, right to property can stand in the way of helping the poor etc. 

[vicious796]

Stating that the United States drafting up a public document clearly showing what its citizens rights are is bad is more retarded than what I just said in humor.

I agree with you that some sort of bill of rights is a good thing. But its not an obvious statement, the idea of protecting individual rights in a constitution is often opposed from the left on the basis that individual rights can stand in the way of whats best for the community. Not having such protections would make it easier for parliament to ignore individuals rights when its deemed necessary. Freedom of speech can be used to defend hate speech, freedom of religion to defend homophobia, right to property can stand in the way of helping the poor etc. 

The only issue there is that (unfortunately) defending the community is not really what the US is all about. In some communities, yes, but not in all. There are more people concerned with their individual rights than those of the entire nation. The problem is that we're talking about two totally different nations with two totally different mindsets of how to govern and why.

[molbjerg]

Stating that the United States drafting up a public document clearly showing what its citizens rights are is bad is more retarded than what I just said in humor.

I just find it funny that Americans think it's a great thing that they HAD TO draw up a consitution, as if they DIDN'T have one of course rights would be violated. You don't need a piece of paper to define what is philosophically obvious, and accounted for in our legal system without ever being defined.

[vicious796]

If you get burned by someone you tend to takes steps to letting that happen again. We felt that we were burned by Britain by not having representation in government and were taxed "unfairly". Looking back, some of the taxes imposed on the colonies were justified to help pay for the military that was sent over for the French and Indian War. However, the movement for rebellion was lead by claiming we were not informed and not apart of government decisions. You can assume that the new government taking over in the colonies wanted to ensure the people that they had a place in the government and that they know exactly what it is.

Really, place yourself back in the late 1700s and early 1800s. How many democratic governments were in the mainstream world? Britain and France were hierachal (sp) as was Spain. The colonists had only ever known that they gave their alligience to the Royal Family, who they would never see. They lived, for generations, in an existence where they did as they were told and nothing else. Now you're telling them that they have the right to do pretty much as they please. I think it deserves some laying out and mapping as it was a relatively new concept.

Thinking about it NOW is one thing and placing yourself in the situation is another.

[AceHigh]

Really, place yourself back in the late 1700s and early 1800s. How many democratic governments were in the mainstream world? Britain and France were hierachal (sp) as was Spain.

I would normally say "History fail", but considering the excessive amount of French revolutions, I will restrain myself from that. Still, take out France from that list, because during that century it was both monarchy, dictatorship and republic, although unofficially it was the truest form of the democracy: mob rule. When the government fucked up, no matter which kind, the people chopped off their heads and elected a new one. That sure as hell beats the electoral college  

[lx4]

A constitutional court can be good thing to have, especially seeing what happened today

Berlusconi immunity law overruled

Italy's constitutional court has overturned a law granting Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi immunity from prosecution while in office.

The move opens the possibility that Mr Berlusconi could stand trial in at least three court cases, including one in which he is accused of corruption.

The judges said immunity violated the principle that all citizens were equal.

source

[AceHigh]

As I said, an angry mob would be just as effective. I would pick guillotine over constitutional court any day 

[kostya]

Really, place yourself back in the late 1700s and early 1800s. How many democratic governments were in the mainstream world? Britain and France were hierachal (sp) as was Spain.

I would normally say "History fail", but considering the excessive amount of French revolutions, I will restrain myself from that. Still, take out France from that list, because during that century it was both monarchy, dictatorship and republic, although unofficially it was the truest form of the democracy: mob rule. When the government fucked up, no matter which kind, the people chopped off their heads and elected a new one. That sure as hell beats the electoral college  

Yes, when the US was writing it's constitution, France was still a monarchy. The fact that the Americans could overthrow their government and give themselves rights was one of the inspirations for the French revolution.

[lx4]

As I said, an angry mob would be just as effective. I would pick guillotine over constitutional court any day 

Liberty under law is the key. Liberty without law seems to better characterize much of revolutionary France. An individual living in a state of chaos and anarchy doesnt have the opportunity to enjoy his freedom.

[AceHigh]

Yes, when the US was writing it's constitution, France was still a monarchy. The fact that the Americans could overthrow their government and give themselves rights was one of the inspirations for the French revolution.

Bwahahahaha, right, the influence from America existed, but not the ideological one, but financial:

Another cause was the fact that Louis XV fought many wars, bringing France to the verge of bankruptcy, and Louis XVI supported the colonists during the American Revolution, exacerbating the precarious financial condition of the government. The national debt amounted to almost two billion livres. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the monarchy's military failures and ineptitude, and the lack of social services for war veterans. The inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both caused and exacerbated by the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation.

I mean honestly, when did French ever cared about what other countries did? The real cause for the revolution was tyranny, famine, horrible economy and the population was tired of all the wars France was involved in.

Liberty under law is the key. Liberty without law seems to better characterize much of revolutionary France. An individual living in a state of chaos and anarchy doesnt have the opportunity to enjoy his freedom.

Freedom is supposed to be chaotic 

[lx4]

I mean honestly, when did French ever cared about what other countries did? The real cause for the revolution was tyranny, famine, horrible economy and the population was tired of all the wars France was involved in.

Fitting then that they ended up with Napoleon. That guy made the old kings seem like pacifists.

[Nikkoru]

I had such hope for a French revolution-like event to occur in the United States shortly after the start of the current recession - considering the mobs forming in front of those responsible, pity how these things seem to fizzle out. Had it been done it would have been the first instance of democracy for a while in the industrialized world.