No, you need to understand that when people make comments like "made up of partisan appointments" they mean the appointments went to people of the "wrong" views. If it was all liberal activist idiots on the bench, why, those wouldn't be partisan appointments at all.
No it would be partisan if they were all liberal as well. In the UK politicians do not nominate and appoint senior judges. An independent, non-partisan commission does it. That helps preserve the political neutrality of the courts, something your senior courts seriously lack.
Go look at our Supreme Court judgments and find me one that is overtly partisan. I appreciate that judges will have political views, but most of our judges are nonetheless reliable and come to the right judicial decisions irrespective of politics. Plus, of course, the point of the commission is to ensure that an appointee is not overtly political.
It goes both ways though usually the snarl word used changes with political affiliation. The right wing loves to complain about "activist judges" no matter how well sourced and supported a ruling was. If they dislike the ruling then they declare the judge an activist. On the other side you have people complaining about supposed "partisan judges" for nearly identical reasons.
There hasn't exactly been a whole lot of case law in the last 9 years or less since it was created. Also what that court covers is a hell of a lot less jurisdiction than SCOTUS. It also gets much less coverage so most people probably couldn't even name a single case. Not even in the UK.
And what makes committee members "independent" and "non-partisan"? If these "independent" committee members have their own values, then those will be applied when judging the fitness of nominees. There is no escaping it. The left tends to see a liberal reality governed by liberal rules -- rules followed by people who can be "independent". The right sees a different reality, and anyone who thinks it works on liberal rules, no matter how centrist or conservative they hold themselves out to be, is already an agent of the left.
The Supreme Court is the old Judicial Committee of the House of Lords renamed, which was simply moved out of the Palace of Westminster and rehoused. It has been the ultimate appellate court in the UK for hundreds of years. I love it how you think you're an expert on something through a 1 minute Google. Also, the US having a wider jurisdiction somehow means our cases are less complex? What sort of idiotic argument it that?
That wasn't a ban...it was just pumping the breaks temporarily...and it was in direct response to the Bowling Green Massacre.
@Dinner is talking out of his jaundiced ass again. If anything, UK courts have exercised far greater jurisdiction than US courts (e.g. universal jurisdiction as in the Pinochet case, among other heinous crimes in which the UK exerts universal jurisdiction). Universal jurisdiction in the US is practically nonexistent.
I'll let y'all in on a deep, dark secret: there's no such thing as "nonpartisan." Human beings have biases. That's just how the species is wired.
We are talking about one specific court in the UK which was formed in 2009, jr. It can't even review rulings of all the courts in the UK, for instance in Scotland it can only review civil court rulings, so it is very fair to say it has a much smaller jurisdiction than the US Supreme Court.
That's all fine, if you didn't have Giuliani on record talking about how Trump wanted a ban and it was his job to find loopholes to get as close as possible to that.
Even if what Giuliani said is true, and I'll for sake of the argument concede that it is true, it's still irrelevant. Fact: Ban was temporary. Fact: Ban was only against seven countries. Fact: The countries that were temporarily banned were chosen by the Obama administration. Trump's administration was simply continuing the process that Obama's administration had already started. Fact: Only 8% of the worlds Islamic followers were affected by this ban. There was no ban on all Islamic followers. Doesn't matter what Trump said or wanted because in the end only what is done matters.
1) As @El Chup already explained, it was a reformation of a court in existence for centuries. 2) As I stated, it has exercised universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity occurring in a completely different country against non-British citizens. It's jurisdictional reach is far greater than any US court. You really gotta learn to read past the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry.
Funnily enough my colleagues and I won a case in the House of Lords Judicial Committee in 1999 and the case was the very next case after the Pinochet one. We even kept being bumped back because of it. But I’m sure the racist thinks I am inventing these memories.
