SCOTUS Across the Pond: Introducing SCOTUK of the United Kingdom
Until he retired a few years ago from Iowa State University, my Dad Jorgen Rasmussen taught Political Science, specializing in British and European politics. So, carrying on his Anglophile tendencies, the advent of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom seems rather too important to ignore, notwithstanding the relative lack of notice it seems to have attracted here in the States.
Officially, as described in this Official Press Release 01/09, the new court came into existence on October 1, 2009 and has apparently been six years in the making. It replaces the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which seems to be more commonly known as the Law Lords. Although the new Supreme Court had already heard arguments, Queen Elizabeth II (or as the Court’s second press release refers to her, “Her Majesty The Queen”) made it official last Friday (October 16) in formal opening festivities. Here’s some video of the festivities.
The change is intended to provide greater independence to the judiciary which has previously been much more intertwined with the legislative branch than is the case in the United States. Physically, the new court will be moving out of the House of Lords and into its own quarters. In some respects this seems an unimportant, almost trivial, change. Yet it also seems like looking back years from now, the move could be huge in charting a perhaps more independent (from the legislative branch) course the UK Supreme Court takes. In another break from the past, the new “Justices” will no longer be members of the House of Lords while they are sitting on the Court. (Imagine if the U.S. Supreme Court Justices were all at-large members of the united States Senate.)
In a move that puts it technologically ahead of the U. S. Supreme Court, the UK Supreme Court will allow video recordings of its proceedings that will be made available to broadcasters in an effort “to be as transparent as possible in its judgments and proceedings.” And apparently, the wigs are history…
Although most Americans didn’t pay much attention, there’s lots of info and comment in the blogosphere about Britain’s new court.
- First stop might be the BBC News’ fine Q&A: UK Supreme Court which provides the basics in a easily understood fashion
- Cassell Bryan-Low and Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal provide some additional background and context in their article A U..K. Court Without Wigs.
- I also rather liked Library Boy Michel-Adrien Sheppard’s selection of coverage and comments in the British press about the change. For some more of that from other publications, click here,
- For the most concise rundown with some great links to related material and information about the new Supreme Court’s inaugural case, check out this post on Jurist.
- SCOTUK by Diane Marie Amann of IntLawGrrls blog focuses on the first case now before the new Supreme Court of United Kingdom which relates to the freezing of assets in a terrorism suspect case.
- And there is a fledgling UKSC Blog which appears to intend to emulate the well known SCOTUS blog
‘Course not everyone’s happy about the new court as you can see by visiting The Not-Supreme Court of the United Kingdom post on the The TaxPayer’s Alliance website which opines that
The proper name should be the Not-Supreme Court, or perhaps the Supreme-ish Court. This is because British law is not in fact supreme in our country, European law is.
And from more mainstream media, Fear Over UK Supreme Court Impact is reported by the BBC News in an interview with Lord Neuberger who didn’t want to make the transition to the new court. According to Lord Neuberger, there is a real risk of
judges arrogating to themselves greater power than they have at the moment…. [The UK Supreme Court seems to have been created]as a result of what appears to have been a last-minute decision over a glass of whiskey… The danger is that you muck around with a constitution like the British Constitution at your peril because you do not know what the consequences of change will be.
My Dad’s take on it? “Supreme? Not really. Parliament is still supreme. Furthermore, in some instances the final word lies with the EU’s Court of Justice.” So one interesting conundrum in the years ahead for the new UK Supreme Court is that although it may be more independent domestically from other branches of government than in the past, its overall power may be become less as Europe becomes more one.
One thing I don’t get, however, is why you’d swap the neat names these folks used to have – Lords of Appeal in Ordinary – to being simply a “Justice” And I’m really surprised and disappointed they couldn’t come up with something a bit more, well British, than ”President” to refer to the head Justice.
Our legal heritage has deep roots across the pond. Now it seems that the child may be influencing the parent. Always interesting to compare the answers each finds.
