Tuesday, 22 September 2020

A supreme court may not necessarily be the guardians of democracy.

 Some 30 years ago in a Left Wing Book Shop in Dublin,  i bought a copy of the Constitution of the USSR..

I looked very much like thos ose adopted in the West even superior to that of the USA , however  Soviet constitutions declared the "leading role" of the CPSU in government and society. Many constitutional rights were not respected and the CPSU openly violated them due to the widespread political repression in the Soviet Union. Citizens had no legal remedy to pursue if the state failed to respect their rights because Soviet law emphasized economic and social rights over civil and political rights

It may even unlike the USA appear to give states the right of succession , but  supposedly independent member of the Warsaw pact like Hungary and Poland were  given sharp lessons in what happens if you try to go your own way.

The whole concept of a constitution has been thrown into question Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a member of the US supreme court

The Supreme Court is part of the founding fathers Seperation of powershe principle or system of vesting in separate branches the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of a government.

The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law.[] However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions.

With the President al election due in November , it has been argued that her replacement should wait to be appointed only after aTrump is reelected or Joe Biden takes control of the Whitehouse in January

"We'll make a decision probably Saturday – but Friday or Saturday," Trump told reporters at the White House, and he would like to see the Republican-run Senate vote on his nominee by Election Day on Nov. 3.

"We have plenty of time to do it," Trump said as he left the White House for a campaign trip to Ohio.

Trump also said he may meet with one of the finalists – appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa – when he stays overnight in Miami on Thursday on a two-day trip; Lagoa is from Florida, a key battleground state.

The decision will probably trigger a political firestorm in the heat of Trump's election battle with Democrat Joe Biden, and both parties pledged to make the future of the high court a major campaign issue.

Following the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, the Court currently consists of five justices appointed by Republican presidents and three appointed by Democratic presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and associate justices ThomasAlitoGorsuch, and Kavanaugh, appointed by Republican presidents, compose the Court's conservative wing. Justices BreyerSotomayor and Kagan, appointed by Democratic presidents, compose the Court's liberal wing. Gorsuch had a track record as a reliably conservative judge in the 10th circuit. Kavanaugh was considered one of the more conservative judges in the DC Circuit prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court Prior to Justice Ginsburg's death, Chief Justice Roberts was considered the Court's median justice (in the middle of the ideological spectrum, with four justices more lwith four justices more liberal and four more conservative than him), making him the ideological center of the Court.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was probably the most liberal leaning of the court  and it would be scandalous if she was replaced by someone appointed by a Far Right President who may soon be  out of office.

However it does show the problem of both a Constitution or Human Rights legislation in which a supreme court make a decision not base on the actual law but their ideological  interpretation of it.

Judges are not neutral and there's no "Goldilocks" Constitution, when we consider  a future Independent Wales we may chose to have some form of supreme court to prevent a dictorial goverment , however the old question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?s  remains a supreme court may guard the guardian but who guards us fromthem.

No comments: