Charon interviewed me today: we spoke about the Supreme Court, its origins and what we expect from it, and whether the superficial change from House of Lords to Supreme Court will bring with it more significant changes, such as the politicisation of appointments, Sotomayor-style confirmation hearings before the Justice Select Committee, and increased judicial assertiveness as against Parliament and the executive.
In other words, in spite of the clear differences, will the UK Supreme Court become just a little more like the US Supreme Court? The difference between the two is one of the things discussed at the new joint Anglo-American blog Charon (under his secret identity, Mike) is writing with Colin Samuels – Unsilent Partners. I think that’s a great idea – we lawyers tend to be too parochially national, but we should know more about other legal systems, and certainly British lawyers could do with knowing more about US law.
So both Charon and I are very interested in what happens from October when the Supreme Court opens for business – and we’ll be keeping a close watch.
We also spoke about the transparency of the new Court and of Law Officers’ advice to government.
Listen to the podcast here.
I enjoyed listening to this podcast. A Pandora's Box has been opened up. The many questions canvassed in the podcast will eventually call for answers. I am of the view that there was absolutely no need whatsoever to create this new Supreme Court of the U.K. which, in reality, is not supreme at all because it does not have the final say on Scottish criminal law cases.
Here is a link to the generous trubutes paid to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary as they bow out of the House of Lords:
Thanks, Peter – I'm glad you enjoyed the podcast. That was your comment, by the way, that Charon mentioned to me – apologies for not immediately remembering it was you.