Tag: UK Supreme Court
-
Dicey After Brexit: Mini-Maximalism at the United Kingdom Supreme Court
—Yvonne Tew, Georgetown University Law Center[1] [Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. For more information about our four columnists for 2020, please click here.] On December 1, 2020, the United Kingdom Government published draft legislation to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which would revive the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament.[2]
-
Changing the Constitution in the Guise of Preserving It
–Qinhao Zhu, University of Oxford In most professions creativity is good. But the value of judicial creativity is more suspect. There’s the suspicion that the creative judge is cheating. Hence, judges often portray their decisions as unoriginal. At one time in England it was said that the common law had existed since the creation of…
-
Observations on the Supreme Court’s Miller and Cherry Hearings
—Theodore Konstadinides, Professor of Law, University of Essex The Miller / Cherry legal battle last week lingered between the tectonic plates of the political and the legal. It was three days of carefully defined legal terms, extended and masterful advocacy combined with awkward pauses, grimaces of disbelief, and phrases that baffled non-lawyers.
-
Book Review: Alexander Hudson on “The UK Constitution After Miller: Brexit and Beyond”
[Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Book Review Series, Alexander Hudson reviews Mark Elliott, Jack Williams & Alison L Young (eds.), The UK Constitution After Miller: Brexit and Beyond (Hart 2018).] –Alexander Hudson, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Fellow Group “Comparative Constitutionalism” In a very timely volume, Mark Elliot, Jack Williams,…
-
UK Learns Brexit is Easier Said Than Done
[This post was first published on the website of the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale. It is republished here with permission of the author.] —David R. Cameron, Professor of Political Science, Director of the Program on European Union Studies, Yale University When Prime Minister Theresa May took over…
-
Where do Justice Ginsburg and Justice Hale—and Judicial Independence—Go from Here?
—Brian Christopher Jones, Liverpool Hope University Both of these influential and widely respected justices have recently tested the limits of judicial speech through provocative and ill-timed statements.[1] Back in July, Justice Ginsburg exclaimed, “I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president”, then called Trump a “faker”, and even suggested that she…
-
How Far Out of Step is the Supreme Court of the United States?
—Brian Christopher Jones, Liverpool Hope University The short answer to the question posed in the title of this piece is: very. This post focuses on three things, some of which Erwin Chemerinsky covered in his recently published monograph, The Case Against the Supreme Court, and also that I focused on in my book review of that…
-
Fundamental Rights, Physician-Assisted Death and the Court’s Institutional Role: A Comment on Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)
—Robert Leckey, McGill University, author of the forthcoming Bills of Rights in the Common Law (Cambridge University Press, May 2015) On 6 February 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed its ruling on assisted suicide. In 1993, in a five-four decision, the Court had ruled that the federal government’s blanket ban on assisted suicide complied with the Canadian…
-
A New Legal Definition of Religion?
—Lorenzo Zucca, Reader in Jurisprudence, King’s College London Scientology is a religion: this much is clear in the UK Supreme Court’s December 11 ruling in the high profile case of Hodkin v Registrar. The facts of the case are simple. Mrs.
-
Are Constitutional Statutes “Quasi-Entrenched”?
–Adam Perry (Aberdeen) and Farrah Ahmed (Melbourne) [cross-posted from UK Constitutional Law Blog] The Supreme Court issued its decision in H v Lord Advocate (pdf) in 2012. The decision has been virtually ignored by constitutional scholars, but we believe it may be of great constitutional significance.