Supreme Court

• 3 aspects of selection and appointmnet

  • Role of senate in appointed - Article II allowed politicisation as Obama and merric v acb - republican majoriy
  • Presidential nomination can leave a lasting impact as justices have security f tenure and can only step down or rarely impeached eg Trump tipped balance by 3 and overturned Roe V Wade
  • Independance once appointed - security of tenure means that they can act alone eg bush appointed Souter who was surprisingly liberal as opposite
• 3 ways Supreme Court performs its role as protecting constitution

  • Judicial restraint v activism - DC V Heller - first time define the second amendment and protected it - DOC enforced a ban on handguns overturned - Roe v wade isn’t explicit in constitution so overturned
  • Upholding citizens rights eg Briwn v Topeka - Major landmark in civil rights - racial segregatuin in schools was unconstitutional - judicial activism
  • Judicial
• 3 arguements section is fit for process

  • David Souter disappointed Bush who was expected to be conservative - regularly aided with liberals - independant of political patrons in nomination - check on power of President
  • FBI Investigatiomn - Anthony Kennedy was questioned for ten hours prior to nomination -allows to make a better judgement
  • ABA provides legislators which judgement - qualified, well qualified - Clarence Thomas was awarded qualified
• 3 not fit for purpose

  • Process has ruined the reputation of court - less effective scrutiny as they confirmed Kavanaugh who had sexual assault allegations - due to senate held by republicans
  • Justices are chosen for their political leaning eg Bush and Souter who urprised him v Trump all republican right wing - Breto Kavaugh has sa allegations - led to tyrannical majoity and roe v wade
  • Refusal to hold hearings for garland v amy coney barret highlighted the politicisation of the Supreme Court noination process - polarised triba politics - violated obamas right
• Cultural similarities and differences

  • US SC landamrk decisions such as roe v wade and dc v heller has caused bitter divide and cultural battles - uk has lower public and politic profile
  • Whilst theres constructionism when it comes to us the uk has a much more united culture and the sc cannot canvas - ultra vires and hra
  • Populism within the trump era and uk electorate excision for Brexit and giving Johnson a victory paint themselves as will of the people whereas judges are unelected - daily mail enemies of public - both politicised and diminish
• rational theory impacts us and uk courts on politics and government

  • presidetn to appoint vs jac - presidents can have lasting political impacts as judges can’t be remove— rulings can’t be contested - roe v wade which trump orchestrated unlike UK who JAC - politicisation
  • The constitution is too hard to amend so justices have too much power when making decisions eg DC v Heller and Roe V Wade can’t be overturned due to partisanship vs UK who can only declare doi
  • US Judges rule base on thier own legal preferences and philosophy - frequently controversial unlike UK where they cannot canvas
• Structural - independance of UK vs UK

  • Soveirgently of Parliament vs institution weaken the uk as can only use DOI whereas US can overturn legislated bodies fully eg DC v Heller unconstitutional whereas uk can use majority to legislated eg belmarsh case
  • Nomination process - Politicisation as US Presidents can appoint and aren’t independant eg TRump used to overturn roe v wade whereas Uk 2005 CRa has JAC which is indpeant but lacks diversity
  • Security o tenure allows for independance as judges cannot be threatened eg Souter and bush - acted opposing - uk judges and Rwanda votes against gov
• Uk - limited interpretative role

  US - Judgeemntal role
• US bill of rights up to interpretations whereas uk has HRA which is specific and protects rights