A Supreme Court that answers to the State



My worry is the power that such a body can have if it is answerable to none but parliament. If run by the particular interests of the largest corporations, it needn’t be the will of the state even if its citizens are brainwashed to think otherwise. Clearly it should be answerable to all those people who have no direct interest in legal professions for they are the ones to gain or lose by its judgements. Potentially these have very grave social costs.

As I have suggested with other posts, if this is written into the constitution so that elected delegate of that interest can put their case for legislation then it can be voted for by the other delegates. The delegate of course must have nothing to do with the writing of the proposed legislation, or else their power would be overreaching others' rights. A chairperson, just like a judge keeps the order so the assembly of delegates does not break down into conflict. You might then ask why we need such a radical move away from centralised control even if it has the appearance of separation. Well it is simple, when the case of Charlie Hebdo was reported, there was much fanfare about equality, fraternity and liberty, but the word justice was silent. No doubt in potentially very dangerous times it is easy to forget that conflicts and crisis' begin with some rights, like Christian, Atheist and Jewish being given precedence over others, like Muslim and Hindu etc.. Of course it can just as easily go the other way, or return to a nostalgia for fascism and communism!

edited on Feb 13, 2015 by Emma McNulty
No comments yet, be the first to post one!