Letters: Judges step in where MPs fail
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Few could argue with the central point of Lindsay Farmer's article ("Now judges speak out, but should we listen?", 7 August); that this country needs a formal written constitution together with a Bill of Rights. She is quite correct to say that without this, where powers are not clearly settled as between the political institutions, there will always be questions over the propriety of particular cases where ministers are the subject of judicial censure.
However, there is a danger that concentration on a few causes celebres, especially in the field of judicial review, will skew our perspective. The judiciary is a changing institution. The cause of a new judicial activism has more to do with the nature of the modern administration of government than it has to with the politicisation of the judiciary.
The media only report a tiny minority of judicial review cases: research proves that the vast majority of cases will never have been as far as a grade 7 civil servant, let alone a minister. In the few cases that the judiciary do question a judgement of a secretary of state it is very difficult to see any usurpation of parliamentary sovereignty. In fact in checking the executive in new ways, it could be argued that they are often doing the job our representatives are failing in, for which many of us are grateful.
MICHAEL HARKER
Cardiff Law School
University of Wales
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments