I don't believe you can get these in real time. You can apply for them afterwards, or you can go and listen for yourself, as this person did.
In the UK we generally don't go in for blow-by-blow realtime reporting of court cases, like they do in the US.
doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences?
Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice.
Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice.
I think in this very case the judge clearly IS pursuing an agenda. It may be a government-approved agenda, but it is clearly an agenda separate from the even-handed pursuit of justice.
Judges do sometimes have agendas. But that is exactly why higher courts exist. This particular case is shaping up to be appealed all the way to UK Supreme Court, these initial hearings are just practice sessions for both sides to hone their arguments.
They can still have a personal agenda or be intimidated to pursue an agenda, or be incentivised to pursue an agenda.
If the transcript exists it ought to be made available quickly to the public. If it's a matter of fees, there ought to be a way of paying in advance for the transcript for a particular day, unless I'm missing something that's unique to the transcription process that makes it less feasible than I'm imagining it to be.
Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them being elected. Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then to run with a political party.
Federal Judges are appointed and about 90% of state judges are elected. There have only been 2 Federal judges that have been impeached since 1989.
Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then to run with a political party.
So: In 18 US states, the courts are entirely captured by party politics, but in the other states there's at least thin pretence that this isn't the case? Hooray for US justice. /s
Also when you say "Federal judges are appointed" you forgot to say "By politicians". Unsurprisingly the British system doesn't let politicians (who will be judged like anyone else) pick the judges, it has independent Commissions† for this purpose, just as it does for deciding electoral boundaries.
And that's how the US went many months without a functioning Supreme Court, so that a political party could ensure their party preference overrode any other consideration, and today the Trump administration basically just dictates to its five tame Justices what the US Constitution "really" always meant which just coincidentally is whatever Trump wants it to mean today. Nice "justice" you've got there, hope your life is never on the line.
† The JAC (which picks most judges including this one) is a mix of existing judges, independent lay people and non-judge lawyers or law experts. It was told to pick people on merit, but only those with "good character" and that it should try to reflect Britain's diversity (so e.g. not replace all the old white male judges with more old white male judges). It appears to work pretty well.
The Supreme Court justices are all appointed. It’s a huge deal politically because the current president will pick someone from their party. They generally vote in line with their party.
I completely understand your point. One thing I will ad is with elections you can change your mind over time. With an appointee you are stuck with their views for an unknown amount of time usually until they retire or die.
Although a modern day Supreme Court judge is automatically referred to as Lord/ Lady, the peerage that would otherwise grant that title and forbids them from voting is not automatic. The Supreme Court are no longer Lords in fact as they were when they had the title "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" and worked across the road in the House of Lords.
All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage, but in principle a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one. Whereas all the elected Government can do about a choice of new Justice itself is say "No" and ask the committee to pick again, the committee isn't obliged to do anything except pick the same person again - which would be a very pointed rebuke. So far of course no government has done that but the UK Supreme Court is young and these are interesting times.
In principle Liz may be able to give the title away without following advice. But that's the part Supreme Court judges get anyway.
The main thing you get when personally ennobled is you get to be in the House of Lords, and Parliament (which includes the House of Lords) decided it gets to choose how that works for itself, it changed the rules last century to stop giving out peerages that survive and can be inherited. Now (other than titles like "Prince of Wales" for royalty that don't come with the ability to sit in Parliament) all new peerages extinguish upon death.
At the time the question was asked: Can Liz just make new peerages anyway? And the answer was that Liz can say "This person is a Duke now" and lo, now they're named Duke So-and-such, but whereas a Duke created by the normal process would get to sit in the Lords (and thus is in Parliament) this Duke would not get to do that.
Since Britain doesn't have any rules forbidding you from taking any name you please (so long as you don't use it to defraud people), this power is useless. You can already name yourself Duke So-and-such without Liz's help.
What the parent commenter meant, I believe, is that the UK Supreme Court is a new construct. Previously, the court of last resort (for cases like this at least) was the House of Lords, specifically those members known as the "law lords" or as their reply indicates, more formally the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
All current Supreme Court justices were drawn from the Law Lords and as a consequence of being Lords cannot vote for MPs. However, so far as I am aware, there's no requirement for a Supreme Court justice to be a Lord and thus no guarantee that any future Supreme court justice will be unable to vote for MPs.
What we may be witnessing, however, is more unspoken convention being established (that Supreme Court justices are made peers on appointment or shortly thereafter).
All that said, the UK Civil Service has a policy of neutrality. Civil servants are divided into junior and senior, depending on the role (not on age or length of service). Junior civil servants are discouraged from political commentary and being "card-carrying" party members and in particular holding any office in a political party. Senior civil servants are outright forbidden to be officers of political parties and any kind of public expression of views is also strictly forbidden.
This is because unlike the US, where the administration changes with the incoming party, the civil service remains unchanged and simply serves the incoming government.
The Judiciary in the UK are not technically civil servants, they're subject to similar restrictions. You can find the evidence of that here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Guide-to..., specifically: "There is a statutory prohibition on salaried judges undertaking any kind of political activity or
having ties with a political party". This extends to public demonstrations of any kind, and further extends to spouses of judges and close relatives as well.
So, even if a future Supreme Court Justice is not a lord, having any kind of political view that is publicly known is unlikely to be compatible with their appointment. This extends to judges. Unless the judge is a lord (and so restricted from appointing to the commons) they are allowed their own private views, and of course may vote (the same is true of the civil service) - but their public conduct is held to a standard of impartiality.
> a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one
I think they can only advise the Crown, not tell her what to do.
I should address this while I'm here. The Queen always acts on advice from ministers, even when that advice was illegal (see brexit) and even if she suspects it to be so. This is because the Queen strictly does not interfere with politics, ever (in private, she may however call the Prime Minister an utter moron, to his or her face, repeatedly for the duration of their weekly meeting, if she so chose. It's also legally required for ministers to inform her of what is going on in government, hence the despatch boxes).
As above, I'm not sure the requirement for being a Lord will necessarily hold for the Supreme Court. It does not appear to be in the legislation. The process is detailed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_o... and involves the Judiciary selecting a candidate and passing that name to the prime minister, who is legally required to pass that name on to the Queen.
The most the political part of this process can do is ask for reconsideration. The judiciary may then submit a different name, or submit the same name again. In the event they do the latter it must be accepted. In the event they do the former, the Lord Chancellor may still chose the first name.
In summary: in the UK system, judges are far more independent of politics than in the US system.
Appointees have to win their place by an established career of honest and forthright legal practice.
Your question is like asking is it better to appoint rocket scientist from a pool of professors of rocket science, via a skill based appointment system, or via a popularity competition that the public vote on.
Comments
I don't believe you can get these in real time. You can apply for them afterwards, or you can go and listen for yourself, as this person did.
In the UK we generally don't go in for blow-by-blow realtime reporting of court cases, like they do in the US.
Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice.
I think in this very case the judge clearly IS pursuing an agenda. It may be a government-approved agenda, but it is clearly an agenda separate from the even-handed pursuit of justice.
Judges do sometimes have agendas. But that is exactly why higher courts exist. This particular case is shaping up to be appealed all the way to UK Supreme Court, these initial hearings are just practice sessions for both sides to hone their arguments.
They can still have a personal agenda or be intimidated to pursue an agenda, or be incentivised to pursue an agenda.
If the transcript exists it ought to be made available quickly to the public. If it's a matter of fees, there ought to be a way of paying in advance for the transcript for a particular day, unless I'm missing something that's unique to the transcription process that makes it less feasible than I'm imagining it to be.
Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them being elected. Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then to run with a political party.
Federal Judges are appointed and about 90% of state judges are elected. There have only been 2 Federal judges that have been impeached since 1989.
So: In 18 US states, the courts are entirely captured by party politics, but in the other states there's at least thin pretence that this isn't the case? Hooray for US justice. /s
Also when you say "Federal judges are appointed" you forgot to say "By politicians". Unsurprisingly the British system doesn't let politicians (who will be judged like anyone else) pick the judges, it has independent Commissions† for this purpose, just as it does for deciding electoral boundaries.
And that's how the US went many months without a functioning Supreme Court, so that a political party could ensure their party preference overrode any other consideration, and today the Trump administration basically just dictates to its five tame Justices what the US Constitution "really" always meant which just coincidentally is whatever Trump wants it to mean today. Nice "justice" you've got there, hope your life is never on the line.
† The JAC (which picks most judges including this one) is a mix of existing judges, independent lay people and non-judge lawyers or law experts. It was told to pick people on merit, but only those with "good character" and that it should try to reflect Britain's diversity (so e.g. not replace all the old white male judges with more old white male judges). It appears to work pretty well.
Because you generally don't need to be re-appointed. You generally do need to be re-elected.
In order to be re-elected you need to please the electorate, rather than do the 'right thing' (whatever that is.)
This can create a conflict of interest, such as judges prioritising 'being tough on crime' over the facts of cases.
The Supreme Court justices are all appointed. It’s a huge deal politically because the current president will pick someone from their party. They generally vote in line with their party.
I completely understand your point. One thing I will ad is with elections you can change your mind over time. With an appointee you are stuck with their views for an unknown amount of time usually until they retire or die.
That seems like basically an extension of election then, as you're electing someone who then appoints someone from their party.
Judges in the UK (source of this article) are never part of a party - they're politically neutral.
Judges in the Supreme Court aren't even allowed to vote in normal elections themeselves (they're lords.)
Although a modern day Supreme Court judge is automatically referred to as Lord/ Lady, the peerage that would otherwise grant that title and forbids them from voting is not automatic. The Supreme Court are no longer Lords in fact as they were when they had the title "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" and worked across the road in the House of Lords.
All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage, but in principle a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one. Whereas all the elected Government can do about a choice of new Justice itself is say "No" and ask the committee to pick again, the committee isn't obliged to do anything except pick the same person again - which would be a very pointed rebuke. So far of course no government has done that but the UK Supreme Court is young and these are interesting times.
Right, that's what I meant, they are all in practice peers.
I think they can only advise the Crown, not tell her what to do.
In principle Liz may be able to give the title away without following advice. But that's the part Supreme Court judges get anyway.
The main thing you get when personally ennobled is you get to be in the House of Lords, and Parliament (which includes the House of Lords) decided it gets to choose how that works for itself, it changed the rules last century to stop giving out peerages that survive and can be inherited. Now (other than titles like "Prince of Wales" for royalty that don't come with the ability to sit in Parliament) all new peerages extinguish upon death.
At the time the question was asked: Can Liz just make new peerages anyway? And the answer was that Liz can say "This person is a Duke now" and lo, now they're named Duke So-and-such, but whereas a Duke created by the normal process would get to sit in the Lords (and thus is in Parliament) this Duke would not get to do that.
Since Britain doesn't have any rules forbidding you from taking any name you please (so long as you don't use it to defraud people), this power is useless. You can already name yourself Duke So-and-such without Liz's help.
What the parent commenter meant, I believe, is that the UK Supreme Court is a new construct. Previously, the court of last resort (for cases like this at least) was the House of Lords, specifically those members known as the "law lords" or as their reply indicates, more formally the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
All current Supreme Court justices were drawn from the Law Lords and as a consequence of being Lords cannot vote for MPs. However, so far as I am aware, there's no requirement for a Supreme Court justice to be a Lord and thus no guarantee that any future Supreme court justice will be unable to vote for MPs.
What we may be witnessing, however, is more unspoken convention being established (that Supreme Court justices are made peers on appointment or shortly thereafter).
All that said, the UK Civil Service has a policy of neutrality. Civil servants are divided into junior and senior, depending on the role (not on age or length of service). Junior civil servants are discouraged from political commentary and being "card-carrying" party members and in particular holding any office in a political party. Senior civil servants are outright forbidden to be officers of political parties and any kind of public expression of views is also strictly forbidden.
This is because unlike the US, where the administration changes with the incoming party, the civil service remains unchanged and simply serves the incoming government.
The Judiciary in the UK are not technically civil servants, they're subject to similar restrictions. You can find the evidence of that here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Guide-to..., specifically: "There is a statutory prohibition on salaried judges undertaking any kind of political activity or having ties with a political party". This extends to public demonstrations of any kind, and further extends to spouses of judges and close relatives as well.
So, even if a future Supreme Court Justice is not a lord, having any kind of political view that is publicly known is unlikely to be compatible with their appointment. This extends to judges. Unless the judge is a lord (and so restricted from appointing to the commons) they are allowed their own private views, and of course may vote (the same is true of the civil service) - but their public conduct is held to a standard of impartiality.
For further information, see this article https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/mar/28/select-committee... on rejecting confirmation hearings by parliament and Lady Hale's speech on standing down as the head of the Supreme Court after the brexit/impartiality mess: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/dec/18/lady-hale-warns-... . Lady Hale also did a fantastic interview on the BBC regarding the functioning of the Supreme Court, and it's really worth listening to: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07nkz4j
I should address this while I'm here. The Queen always acts on advice from ministers, even when that advice was illegal (see brexit) and even if she suspects it to be so. This is because the Queen strictly does not interfere with politics, ever (in private, she may however call the Prime Minister an utter moron, to his or her face, repeatedly for the duration of their weekly meeting, if she so chose. It's also legally required for ministers to inform her of what is going on in government, hence the despatch boxes).
As above, I'm not sure the requirement for being a Lord will necessarily hold for the Supreme Court. It does not appear to be in the legislation. The process is detailed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_o... and involves the Judiciary selecting a candidate and passing that name to the prime minister, who is legally required to pass that name on to the Queen.
The most the political part of this process can do is ask for reconsideration. The judiciary may then submit a different name, or submit the same name again. In the event they do the latter it must be accepted. In the event they do the former, the Lord Chancellor may still chose the first name.
In summary: in the UK system, judges are far more independent of politics than in the US system.
If their views impact their judgement it will be overruled and they can be disbarred.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/15/constance-br...
Appointees have to win their place by an established career of honest and forthright legal practice.
Your question is like asking is it better to appoint rocket scientist from a pool of professors of rocket science, via a skill based appointment system, or via a popularity competition that the public vote on.