3 ms·

In Western countries, the judiciary and the executive (which contains the day-to-day operations of the government) generally operate independently and can rule

In Western countries, the judiciary and the executive (which contains the day-to-day operations of the government) generally operate independently and can rule against each other. I'm most familiar with the US, and I think its constitution was the first to encode judicial independence - and constitutional review by the Supreme Court was established early on in US history. But all Western countries these days have had judges rule against executive policy and the executive obey it. The details of how to override a ruling against the executive does differ between countries, and also on whether its considered just an interpretation of law or a constitutional question. Both the US and France have a written constitution that's binding on other branches, while the UK does not.

ChocolateGod 2mo ago
> The details of how to override a ruling against the executive does differ between countries, and also on whether its considered just an interpretation of law or a constitutional question. Both the US and France have a written constitution that's binding on other branches, while the UK does not. Yeh. In the UK, the supreme court can not strike down primary legislation. It can rule executive actions are not following the primary legislation or unwritten constitutional rules, but if parliament passes a law that says oranges are now green, the supreme court is in no position to challenge it.
- kergonath 2mo ago
  > if parliament passes a law that says oranges are now green, the supreme court is in no position to challenge it. It’s a good thing MPs are serious people and Parliament would never do that, right? :)
  - kps 2mo ago
    If you're worried about MPs doing that, you should be equally worried about judges doing that. The difference is that MPs can be voted out.
    - kergonath 2mo ago
      Indeed. That’s part of why I prefer civil law to common law. I don’t vote in general elections anyway. I am a resident, not a citizen.
- wahern 2mo ago
  The UK does have the Principle of Legality, which is a way for courts to strike down an application of primary legislation by requiring a clear statement to abrogate common law and constitutional norms: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2024/05/20/hayley-hooper-historical-origins-of-the-principle-of-legality-in-british-public-law/ https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2024/05/20/hayley-hooper-his... An interesting twist to UK constitutional jurisprudence is that until relatively recently the House of Lords was the highest court. In fact, the very origin of Parliament was as a court. The devolution of legislative and judicial (and executive) powers from the king had always been intertwined. So contrasting constitutional judicial review between the US and UK by gesturing at the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy didn't necessarily prove anything as the House of Lords was, in a sense, Parliament. (This was often a rebuttal for when people brought up the Principle of Legality as contradicting Parliamentary Supremacy, or otherwise interjected in discussions of judicial review in the UK.) Now that the highest court is independent, the next 100 years of constitutional jurisprudence in the UK should prove interesting.
  - graemep 2mo ago
    > An interesting twist to UK constitutional jurisprudence is that until relatively recently the House of Lords was the highest court. In fact, the very origin of Parliament was as a court. Since the 19th century it has been only the law lords, who are judges. In effect judges of the court of last resort (i.e. what is now the supreme court) became members of the second chamber of parliament. Other members of the House of Lords did have not had a judicial role since then.

ChocolateGod 2mo ago

> The details of how to override a ruling against the executive does differ between countries, and also on whether its considered just an interpretation of law or a constitutional question. Both the US and France have a written constitution that's binding on other branches, while the UK does not. Yeh. In the UK, the supreme court can not strike down primary legislation. It can rule executive actions are not following the primary legislation or unwritten constitutional rules, but if parliament passes a law that says oranges are now green, the supreme court is in no position to challenge it.

kergonath 2mo ago
> if parliament passes a law that says oranges are now green, the supreme court is in no position to challenge it. It’s a good thing MPs are serious people and Parliament would never do that, right? :)
- kps 2mo ago
  If you're worried about MPs doing that, you should be equally worried about judges doing that. The difference is that MPs can be voted out.
  - kergonath 2mo ago
    Indeed. That’s part of why I prefer civil law to common law. I don’t vote in general elections anyway. I am a resident, not a citizen.
wahern 2mo ago
The UK does have the Principle of Legality, which is a way for courts to strike down an application of primary legislation by requiring a clear statement to abrogate common law and constitutional norms: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2024/05/20/hayley-hooper-historical-origins-of-the-principle-of-legality-in-british-public-law/ https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2024/05/20/hayley-hooper-his... An interesting twist to UK constitutional jurisprudence is that until relatively recently the House of Lords was the highest court. In fact, the very origin of Parliament was as a court. The devolution of legislative and judicial (and executive) powers from the king had always been intertwined. So contrasting constitutional judicial review between the US and UK by gesturing at the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy didn't necessarily prove anything as the House of Lords was, in a sense, Parliament. (This was often a rebuttal for when people brought up the Principle of Legality as contradicting Parliamentary Supremacy, or otherwise interjected in discussions of judicial review in the UK.) Now that the highest court is independent, the next 100 years of constitutional jurisprudence in the UK should prove interesting.
- graemep 2mo ago
  > An interesting twist to UK constitutional jurisprudence is that until relatively recently the House of Lords was the highest court. In fact, the very origin of Parliament was as a court. Since the 19th century it has been only the law lords, who are judges. In effect judges of the court of last resort (i.e. what is now the supreme court) became members of the second chamber of parliament. Other members of the House of Lords did have not had a judicial role since then.