5 ms·

Fun facts about the UK supreme court: - It was created by an Act of Parliament - It is a government department - It can not overturn primary legislation - P

Fun facts about the UK supreme court: - It was created by an Act of Parliament - It is a government department - It can not overturn primary legislation - Parliament could dissolve the court if it so wished

Defletter 2y ago
Yup. What Parliament giveth, Parliament can taketh away. It is scary to think what Parliament can do with a simple majority.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > It is scary to think what Parliament can do with a simple majority. If so, why don't we see parliaments misbehave more often and do crazy shit?
  - switch007 2y ago
    Good question. Mostly self preservation I guess. It's not unheard of for a party to get wiped out. I feel the Queen made moves behind the scenes to keep the government in check too. As much as she could. Not sure about Charles I'm sure they're looking at Trump and realising they can get away with anything if they want to. Ministers used to resign in disgrace over far less severe things than we've seen the past 2 decades. Now you can just easily distract the public with scandal after scandal or issue after issue. Then they can re-enter politics
  - Lanolderen 2y ago
    Probably the pitchfork risk. Governments have gotten good at keeping safe distance from the point where things might get violent.
  - Defletter 2y ago
    Well, we are unfortunately seeing more of this with the rise of populism. However, I feel as if certain factors come together to provide a pretty effective stop-gap: 1. Members of Parliament (MPs) represent roughly 70k people. And while that's still a significant number, it's small enough for them to know and be known by their constituents. It's more difficult to vote against your constituents when you know them. 2. The House of Lords (HoL) can revise and delay, but not block, which means we are functionally immune from cross-chamber games of chicken that result in US-style government shutdowns, or European-style budget bills as confidence motions. We did come pretty close to this with Brexit in 2019, but this was all within the House of Commons given that the ruling party did not command a majority. 3. Parliamentarians usually respect the inertia of institution. As in, the idea that it's right to continue things as they've always been done, unless there's a compelling reason. It's why we're still a Monarchy, why there's still bishops and hereditaries in the House of Lords, etc. Basically, there's a culture of incrementalism. Because if you don't have the inertia, you appear to lack legitimacy, it's just a gimmick. 4. And on the heels of that, I think Parliamentarians have an occupational understanding of the adage "With great power comes great responsibility." 5. The Civil Service, while ostensibly neutral, tends to resign when asked to do anything believed to be damaging to the country. All of this put together (and probably more than I haven't thought of) means that MPs understand that they could do great damage, and so they restrain themselves. Contrast this with other countries with difficult systems where politicians stir up the passions of their constituents by naming their systemic limitations, "I would love to do X, but I can't because Y prevents me." A somewhat related example would be abortion in the US, where after Roe v Wade was decided, many states became soapboxes for anti-abortion rhetoric. It's a safe rhetorical position: you can say what you like and then blame the federal government for not being able to do it. But then Roe v Wade was overturned and many of these politicians and states have changed their tune, because the power is now in their hands, they are now answerable to their constituents on this matter. Not that it matters given how much gerrymandering there is, but still, the effect was noticeable.
OJFord 2y ago
I see from your comment history you're British, so I don't get why you describe this as surprising. There's the Commons, Lords, and the King. Who or what else would be creating or dissolving the court? Why would it be able to overturn primary legislation that's received royal assent? That would just be swapping things around so you'd be saying 'fun fact about parliament, supreme court can...' anyway, surely?
- dmix 2y ago
  Not having a judicial body that is fully independent of the legislative branch (parliament) and not being able to strike down laws is interesting/surprising to me shrug. I've always liked the idea of strong judicial oversight. But I guess without a strong constitution, where parliaments laws can't be ruled unconstitutional, it doesn't matter much... the public will be fully at the whims of parliament.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    > But I guess without a strong constitution The UK doesn't have a written constitution. This is rare amongst highly developed democracies. Also, to my knowledge, most parliamentary systems don't have a final court that can overturn laws passed by the parliament.
  - OJFord 2y ago
    Aren't US SC judges picked by the president? Can't he override everything with pardons and executive orders anyway? Can't the US constitution be, uh, amended?
    - dagw 2y ago
      Aren't US SC judges picked by the president? They're nominated by the president, but approved by the Senate. There have been cases throughout history where a nominated judge doesn't get through the approval process. Of course when the president and the Senate are aligned and in agreement this approval process is largely a rubber stamp. Can't he override everything with pardons and executive orders anyway? Not at all. Despite what it sometimes looks like, the president's executive order powers are quite limited. But again, if congress isn't willing to challenge the order and the Supreme Court isn't willing to rule on it, these limits are more theoretical. Can't the US constitution be, uh, amended? It can, but it is a slow and difficult process, requiring 2/3 support of both the house and the senate, plus support from 3/4 of the States. There have apparently been over 10000 attempts to amend the constitution since the founding, of which 27 have passed. Furthermore the president has no power to suggest or approve constitutional amendments. Basically a president that doesn't have the support of Congress and the Supreme Court has surprisingly little power.

Defletter 2y ago

Yup. What Parliament giveth, Parliament can taketh away. It is scary to think what Parliament can do with a simple majority.

throwaway2037 2y ago
> It is scary to think what Parliament can do with a simple majority. If so, why don't we see parliaments misbehave more often and do crazy shit?
- switch007 2y ago
  Good question. Mostly self preservation I guess. It's not unheard of for a party to get wiped out. I feel the Queen made moves behind the scenes to keep the government in check too. As much as she could. Not sure about Charles I'm sure they're looking at Trump and realising they can get away with anything if they want to. Ministers used to resign in disgrace over far less severe things than we've seen the past 2 decades. Now you can just easily distract the public with scandal after scandal or issue after issue. Then they can re-enter politics
- Lanolderen 2y ago
  Probably the pitchfork risk. Governments have gotten good at keeping safe distance from the point where things might get violent.
- Defletter 2y ago
  Well, we are unfortunately seeing more of this with the rise of populism. However, I feel as if certain factors come together to provide a pretty effective stop-gap: 1. Members of Parliament (MPs) represent roughly 70k people. And while that's still a significant number, it's small enough for them to know and be known by their constituents. It's more difficult to vote against your constituents when you know them. 2. The House of Lords (HoL) can revise and delay, but not block, which means we are functionally immune from cross-chamber games of chicken that result in US-style government shutdowns, or European-style budget bills as confidence motions. We did come pretty close to this with Brexit in 2019, but this was all within the House of Commons given that the ruling party did not command a majority. 3. Parliamentarians usually respect the inertia of institution. As in, the idea that it's right to continue things as they've always been done, unless there's a compelling reason. It's why we're still a Monarchy, why there's still bishops and hereditaries in the House of Lords, etc. Basically, there's a culture of incrementalism. Because if you don't have the inertia, you appear to lack legitimacy, it's just a gimmick. 4. And on the heels of that, I think Parliamentarians have an occupational understanding of the adage "With great power comes great responsibility." 5. The Civil Service, while ostensibly neutral, tends to resign when asked to do anything believed to be damaging to the country. All of this put together (and probably more than I haven't thought of) means that MPs understand that they could do great damage, and so they restrain themselves. Contrast this with other countries with difficult systems where politicians stir up the passions of their constituents by naming their systemic limitations, "I would love to do X, but I can't because Y prevents me." A somewhat related example would be abortion in the US, where after Roe v Wade was decided, many states became soapboxes for anti-abortion rhetoric. It's a safe rhetorical position: you can say what you like and then blame the federal government for not being able to do it. But then Roe v Wade was overturned and many of these politicians and states have changed their tune, because the power is now in their hands, they are now answerable to their constituents on this matter. Not that it matters given how much gerrymandering there is, but still, the effect was noticeable.

OJFord 2y ago

I see from your comment history you're British, so I don't get why you describe this as surprising. There's the Commons, Lords, and the King. Who or what else would be creating or dissolving the court? Why would it be able to overturn primary legislation that's received royal assent? That would just be swapping things around so you'd be saying 'fun fact about parliament, supreme court can...' anyway, surely?

dmix 2y ago
Not having a judicial body that is fully independent of the legislative branch (parliament) and not being able to strike down laws is interesting/surprising to me shrug. I've always liked the idea of strong judicial oversight. But I guess without a strong constitution, where parliaments laws can't be ruled unconstitutional, it doesn't matter much... the public will be fully at the whims of parliament.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > But I guess without a strong constitution The UK doesn't have a written constitution. This is rare amongst highly developed democracies. Also, to my knowledge, most parliamentary systems don't have a final court that can overturn laws passed by the parliament.
- OJFord 2y ago
  Aren't US SC judges picked by the president? Can't he override everything with pardons and executive orders anyway? Can't the US constitution be, uh, amended?
  - dagw 2y ago
    Aren't US SC judges picked by the president? They're nominated by the president, but approved by the Senate. There have been cases throughout history where a nominated judge doesn't get through the approval process. Of course when the president and the Senate are aligned and in agreement this approval process is largely a rubber stamp. Can't he override everything with pardons and executive orders anyway? Not at all. Despite what it sometimes looks like, the president's executive order powers are quite limited. But again, if congress isn't willing to challenge the order and the Supreme Court isn't willing to rule on it, these limits are more theoretical. Can't the US constitution be, uh, amended? It can, but it is a slow and difficult process, requiring 2/3 support of both the house and the senate, plus support from 3/4 of the States. There have apparently been over 10000 attempts to amend the constitution since the founding, of which 27 have passed. Furthermore the president has no power to suggest or approve constitutional amendments. Basically a president that doesn't have the support of Congress and the Supreme Court has surprisingly little power.