Photo AI
Question 1
Using the source, evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty. In your response you must: 1. compare and contrast opinions ... show full transcript
Step 1
Answer
The source presents contrasting views on the role of the Supreme Court concerning parliamentary sovereignty. On one hand, Andrew Bridgen argues that the Supreme Court’s decision is detrimental, labeling it an 'absolute disgrace' that undermines democracy and ignores the 2016 referendum. This perception suggests that the Court has overstepped its bounds, thereby weakening Parliament's authority.
Conversely, Gina Miller supports the notion that the Court’s actions merely reinforce parliamentary sovereignty. She emphasizes that judicial reviews are essential in holding the executive branch accountable, asserting the importance of an independent judiciary. The differing opinions illustrate a broader debate about the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary.
Step 2
Answer
In assessing these views, it is crucial to recognize that Brexiteers like Bridgen perceive the Supreme Court as an obstacle to the will of the people, as expressed in the referendum. This perspective underscores the fear of judicial overreach and the belief that elected representatives should have the ultimate authority.
In contrast, supporters of the judicial review process, such as Miller, argue that the Court serves as a vital check on executive power. This viewpoint highlights the necessity of an independent judiciary in safeguarding against potential abuses of power, thereby strengthening parliamentary sovereignty.
Step 3
Answer
The information in the source can be evaluated by examining the implications of the Supreme Court's rulings described. The reference to judicial reviews indicates that the Court acts as a necessary balance in the political system, preventing any branch from becoming too powerful. The Court's actions affirm that parliamentary sovereignty is not absolute but is subject to legal interpretation and review, thereby fostering a system of checks and balances.
However, it must be acknowledged that some view this intervention as fundamentally incompatible with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, potentially leading to ongoing tensions between judicial decisions and legislative intentions. This duality reflects the complexity of governance in a democratic society where various powers must coexist and interact.
Report Improved Results
Recommend to friends
Students Supported
Questions answered