4 ms·

What's Boris has to do with this? It's the Supreme Court's decision, not Cabinet's. The same Supreme court who ruled that Boris Johnson broke the law by suspend

What's Boris has to do with this? It's the Supreme Court's decision, not Cabinet's. The same Supreme court who ruled that Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending the parliament.

ricardobayes 6y ago
I would argue judicial independence would only exist in a scenario if the judge is not human, but a rule-based bot.
- pmyteh 6y ago
  The judges are definitely human, but their biases are very strongly those of the judicial system, not those of the executive. They're all well-off lawyers, and mostly privately educated, white, and male - so there is an 'establishment' tinge to their viewpoints (though individual judges vary widely). But as far as politics goes, the predominant view is that justice is (and judges are) important, not that the government should have any particular influence. For a small example, there was a recent case where an MP of the governing party (Charlie Elphicke) was convicted of sexual assault. As part of the sentencing process, defendants can submit character references ("He's a hugely charitable, reliable, all round good person and this offence is entirely out of character", that kind of thing) and several Conservative MPs sent them on his behalf, but asked for them to be kept confidential (presumably to avoid political damage at the upcoming election). The judiciary were having none of it. The trial judge released the letters anyway, and the Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal courts) rebuked the MPs for trying to influence the decision of a judge.[0] And this for something (character references) which are pretty mundane. They really do not like bowing to political whims. [0]: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-criminal-trials-are-not-confidential-and-should-be-released-media https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-cr...

What's Boris has to do with this? It's the Supreme Court's decision, not Cabinet's. The same Supreme court who ruled that Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending the parliament.

ricardobayes 6y ago

I would argue judicial independence would only exist in a scenario if the judge is not human, but a rule-based bot.

pmyteh 6y ago
The judges are definitely human, but their biases are very strongly those of the judicial system, not those of the executive. They're all well-off lawyers, and mostly privately educated, white, and male - so there is an 'establishment' tinge to their viewpoints (though individual judges vary widely). But as far as politics goes, the predominant view is that justice is (and judges are) important, not that the government should have any particular influence. For a small example, there was a recent case where an MP of the governing party (Charlie Elphicke) was convicted of sexual assault. As part of the sentencing process, defendants can submit character references ("He's a hugely charitable, reliable, all round good person and this offence is entirely out of character", that kind of thing) and several Conservative MPs sent them on his behalf, but asked for them to be kept confidential (presumably to avoid political damage at the upcoming election). The judiciary were having none of it. The trial judge released the letters anyway, and the Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal courts) rebuked the MPs for trying to influence the decision of a judge.[0] And this for something (character references) which are pretty mundane. They really do not like bowing to political whims. [0]: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-criminal-trials-are-not-confidential-and-should-be-released-media https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-cr...