قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / Brexit: Britain has a brilliant method of appointing Supreme Court judges

Brexit: Britain has a brilliant method of appointing Supreme Court judges

The UK Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully when it "announced" the parliament. This process temporarily suspends Parliament and prevents the adoption of laws. (Technically, the power to spread the parliament lies with the queen, but as the court said, the queen's consent is "a formality.")

R against the prime minister – a brutal political blow against the Prime Minister's impact on the ongoing Brexit debate – likely to amaze the American public accustomed to our increasingly party-political Supreme Court. The decision of the British court, which was made just days after the hearing of arguments, is unanimous, clear and surprisingly clear and contains the common view of eleven judges. There are no dissenting opinions that denounce the pet theory of the executive power of a judiciary or push a barely veiled legal justification to a party-political outcome.

The decision is the product of a judicial system that isolates its highest judges far more from the partisan policy than the United States Constitution. Americans who want to avoid the partisan drama that included the appointments of Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court could learn a lot from the British system of judges' selection.

selects his judges through a process that emphasizes merit and experience. In the American system, a partisan president appoints a judge whose political views are well known to the main members of that president's party, and then the judge is confirmed by a partisan senate (or a confirmation vote is denied altogether). By contrast, the UK system relies largely on high-ranking members of the judiciary and other persons well versed in the judiciary, with the additional proviso that "selection must be an advantage".

In other words, it seems to be designed to turn the Supreme Court into a political football because it puts the judges' selection in the hands of politicians. The British system is not perfect, but it is much better designed to de-politicize the judiciary.

How the British choose their judges

The UK Supreme Court ranks at the top of the UK judicial system and has the final say in all civil and most criminal cases across the UK.

The British system of selection of judges of the Supreme Court is complicated. In short, it relies on a selection committee, which is called when a vacancy is vacant, and is usually chaired by the President of the Supreme Court. Such vacancies also occur more frequently than in the United States because the Court has 12 seats and judges from a certain age need to retire – maybe 70 or 75, depending on when they joined the bank.

England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own judicial selection committees or councils, and the chairman of each body appoints one representative to participate in the selection panel. The Appeals Commission of the Supreme Court also includes a senior member of the judiciary, appointed by the President of the Court.

The Commission must consult with a relatively long list of high-level judges and other senior officials before making a selection. At the end of this consultation, she will select a single candidate and the name of this candidate will be forwarded to Lord Chancellor, a senior cabinet official.

At this stage a limited number of party political actors can be involved in the selection process. The Chancellor is usually a member of the party that controls Parliament, and is appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister. After receiving the name, the Registrar may approve the selection, reject it immediately or ask the Commission to re-examine it. However, the Federal Chancellor can only rely on the latter two opinions.

The Chancellor thus has indeed a one-way veto. They may reject a candidate but not block the Commission's second choice if the Commission is obliged to do so (the Commission may send the same name to the Registrar after the Registrar has requested re-examination, but not after a refusal).

At the end of the process, the name is sent to the Prime Minister, who in turn sends him to the Queen for a formal appointment.

Compare that to the US, where potential judges are often identified by ideological societies, while those judges are still in-waiting on the law school. The task of appointing new judges is delegated to presidents, who can often use the judicial selection to extend their influence to a distant past after leaving office. And the Senate can either act as a stamp for candidates of the same party that controls the Senate or as an insurmountable roadblock for candidates of the other party.

It is worth noting that many US states use merit picking commissions to select their judges. According to the Brennan Justice Center, "from 1940 to 1994, 23 states have introduced a specific version of the range of services". The "gold standard for many in the reform community" is referred to as the "Missouri Plan" after the first state accepted it.

In Missouri, the Supreme Court vacancy is forwarded to a seven-member commission, which includes: "three lawyers elected by lawyers in the Missouri Bar Association … three elected by the governor and the chief judge acting as judge chairman , "This commission selects three names and forwards them to the governor, who must select one of the three names within 60 days. Otherwise the Commission will take the final decision.

Unlike the British system, however, the Missouri Plan adds an additional political layer to the process. After a year in office, the new judiciary must pass an election in which state voters decide whether to remain in office or to be dismissed.

Merit selection is not perfect, but better than what we have now

] An American Bar Association report from 2017 lists several shortcomings in the Missouri plan, two of which may also apply to it a system based on the British model. Parliamentary elections "have become increasingly expensive and politicized, pressurizing judges to settle controversial cases" – a problem that occurred in the 2010 Iowa elections when three Supreme Court judges were deposed after anti-LGBTQ groups had fought against her decision in favor of equality of marriage.

Earnings Selection Committees may also be subject to "capture", either by special interests or by political branches. This appears to be the case in Arizona, where the judicial selection panel allowed Republican Governor Doug Ducey to appoint a president anti-government activist and a strictly conservative prosecutor at the Supreme Court

ABA states that selected payroll commissions "did not succeed in securing a diverse bank". A 2010 Brennan According to the Center's report, "white men make up about 37.5% of the total population of the United States and yet account for about 66% of judges on state appeals boards," although the same report indicates that states that are their own Judges choose only slightly affected by less diversity on the bench than states that use performance selection.

Commissions, whether structured like the Missouri system or the British system, provide no guarantee that a depressed, powerful group will not gain control of the judges' selection process. But despite all the alerts that have occurred in Arizona, there are also numerous cases where such commissions have successfully depoliticized the judiciary.

An example of this is Judge Morgan Christen, for whom President Obama has appointed the United States Appeals Tribunal. Prior to joining the Bundesbank, Christian was a judge at the Supreme Court of Alaska – and an appointment by Sarah Palin, the Republican governor. "I am confident that Judge Christian has the experience, the intellect, the wisdom and the character to be an outstanding Justice of the Supreme Court," Palin said in 2009 after she had selected Christians from the names that she had chosen the selection commission of their state.

Alaska's Earnings In other words, the selection process succeeded in finding one of the few things that both Obama and Palin could agree on: Morgan Christen is an excellent judge.

Most critics of the ABA's selection of merits rely on fears that this could be the case with the commissions, not being effective in isolating the judicial selection from the policy. And sometimes these fears are justified.

But a system that could be captured by partisans in is much better than the system with which the federal government currently chooses judges. This system is not driven only by partisans. It is not even guaranteed that partisans who are supported by the population, choose judges.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill a post at the Supreme Court in 2016 after winning reelection in 2012 with more than 3 million votes. Senate Republicans – whose "majority" in the Senate represented about 20 million fewer people than the Democratic minority – refused to give Garland a confirmation hearing or vote.

Neil Gorsuch, the first candidate to the Supreme Court of Trump, was the first American history to be confirmed by a president who lost the referendum and was replaced by a bloc of senators representing less than half of the country Supreme Court should be proposed. The second candidate was Trump's second candidate, Brett Kavanaugh.

The concerns of the ABA that commissions can not be captured are therefore real, but the federal alternative is judicial selection by a minority party that owes its power to a constitutional system effectively gives Republicans additional votes.

Similarly, ABA's concern that performance selection systems do not always produce different judges is justified. But the federal system is no less worrying. According to an August NPR report, "around 70% of Trump judges are white men". But there are better and worse ways. And the current system of the federal government is one of the worst.

Source link