There is, however, one great benefit from this decision: perhaps for the first time, the judges’ way of thinking has been made absolutely clear. They think it is for the Supreme Court to decide when the elected government doesn’t know what it’s doing, and then to correct its legislative blunders. Lord Brown does not spell out the dangerous implications for democracy of that outlook, but they are there for all to see in his blistering dissent.
Let us imagine, go on, just pretend for a moment, that government is made up of slime ridden panderers to the lowest common denominator who will do absolutely anything to remain ensconced on the throne of power.
I know, tough to imagine, isn\’t it?
In such a system it\’s possible to posit that there will be, over here say, lofty declarations about what are the rights of man. Might be the right to healthcare or a job, might be to free speech or a fair trial, depends on which constituency the slimeballs were reaching out to when they spouted the nonsense.
We can also imagine the mob, that democracy, desiring to over rise these rules in certain circumstances. Perhaps, as was roughly true at one time, a policeman has been murdered on duty so someone will swing for it: doesn\’t matter so much who but someone must. Perhaps the mob has become inflamed about paeophiles so anyone with a stolen credit card on a server that hosts kiddie porn must be hounded into suicide.
Maybe we\’ve promised that people who are Brits have a right to a family life, then the mob asserts that darkies shouldn\’t have that right: onor should Brits who marry darkies.
The Supreme Court, however much it might fail in such things as protecting the rights of not policeman murderers to not be hanged, is at least there for the purpose of making sure that new laws do not over ride those rights promised in other earlier laws. And even, if we were to do such a thing as ssingle out certain laws as being more important than others, make sure that more minor laws do not over ride rights granted in those more major.
That\’s actually what a Supreme Court is for.
The Human Rights Act, passed in 1998, greatly increased their powers – and their confidence – to strike down laws passed by the elected government. Judges and their supporters hotly deny that they now regularly usurp powers that properly belong to Parliament – but last week, a decision by the Supreme Court indicated that, in fact, that’s exactly what they do.
Complaining about a Supreme Court doing what a Supreme Court is supposed to do is very odd indeed.