Not really

Very crude summary is that they looked likely to take the law in a new direction, whereby prerogative acts are amenable to JR even though they had a political purpose if the court feels that that political purpose was an improper one. (Orthodoxy was that courts would stay out of politics, leaving them to be decided by political means.) I don’t regard that as a good thing because it’s a huge “separation of powers” issue, to my mind.

My main worry is that the logic of this will lead us to US style “confirmation” hearings, on the basis that if judges are going to decide which political decisions they regard as improper and which they do not, there is suddenly a reasonable basis for arguing that their political views should be known and examined before they are appointed. I would be hugely sad about any such development.

Posted By: Old Git, Sep 24, 09:23:48