Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: aquila48

A supreme court is a new thing in Britain. Hope they like it.

They replace the 1000-year old right of appeal to the House of Lords, in latter days to a committee in that House called the Law Lords. As such, the House of Lords/Law Lords did not violate the principle that the government of the realm was the Crown in Parliament, ultimately responsible to the People (Commons) or the monarch (Lords).

Their shiny new Supreme Court is NOT under the government OR the monarchy. At the time it was created, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, later President of the Supreme Court, expressed fear that the new court could make itself more powerful than the House of Lords committee it succeeded, saying that there is a real risk of “judges arrogating to themselves greater power than they have at the moment”

Smart guy.


11 posted on 11/04/2016 3:35:48 AM PDT by Jim Noble (The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Jim Noble

Supreme Courts are a mistake.

Setting up a system where 3 or 9 people can dictate to the people is a dictatorship.

If “Supreme “ court decisions were subject to review by the elected legislators ,perhaps requiring a four-fifths majority to change, some of the abuses might be corrected.


14 posted on 11/04/2016 6:07:37 AM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson