Are Judges getting too big for their wigs?

Guest Poster, Brian, thinks so, and what he wants for Christmas

Is an end to judicial activism. There is no need in our democracy for judges to battle Parliament on behalf of the disenfranchised and make law on their behalf. We don’t need the equivalent of Judge Richard Goldstone in England. To all the former student Marxists who now sit bewigged on the Bench, I say “Oi, Parliament is the highest court in the land, M’Learned Mush and your job is to interpret Common Law and Statute and apply it to each case. Not create more areas of human rights work for your fellow Benchers. The golden rule you must apply is “What is the exact meaning of the text of the Act of Parliament?” If you are unable to honestly answer that because of imprecise drafting, don’t try to be smart, I propose that you must instead submit a written Certificate of Clarification to Parliament which sets out the point of law requiring explanation. It is rightly Parliament’s responsibility to resolve matters that it has created. By a simple resolution of the elected members; legal clarifications could take the place of Early Day Motions; imperfect sections of Acts could be clarified with the minimum of delay. This measure would help to restore the legitimacy of Parliament and the Judicature in the eyes of we citizens on whose behalf they act.

WW adds a caveat in small, difficult to read type: The above piece is an opnion by the author and does not necessarily reflect the position of the blog owner. Therefore, please address comments/writs and spleen to the writer, Brian. 

WW adds: Having said that, I tend to agree. It cannot be right that scumbags from the various shitholes of the world, who commit serious crimes, be allowed to stay here because some prat in a wig is concerned about his uman rights. On the other hand, taking away the independence of the judiciary is one step nearer to a police state. I don't know the answer to this one. Do you?

No comments: