Political interference in the judicial system

THERE have been worrying developments following the news of the death of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the USA Supreme Court of Justice, the USA’s equivalent of the UK’s House of Lords.

Under the US Constitution, the sitting president kicks off the process of appointing new members to the Supreme Court by recommending their appointment to the Senate – this is also the institution that also has the final say about the impeachment of the particular president. It is clear that this system allows, if it does not assist, the Senate to cast its votes for or against impeachment along party lines, rather than where the evidence should lead them.

This is the position we are now witnessing with the current Trump presidency and it will be reinforced by a constitution that allows the sitting President’s favoured candidate

to replace Judge Ginsburg being elected by the party that presently controls the Senate.

I could draw out the difference between that position and the present situation in the UK, but thankfully I am saved from so doing by directing interested parties to the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. There they will see that, as things stand at the moment, the UK’s legal system is clear of political interference at all levels.

I say at the moment because of the threat, conveyed by the present Tory Government, through its Llanelliborn and educated Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chief Justice, that it intends to curb the power of the UK’s supreme court of justice, the House of Lords, following its finding that the Government had acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament in in the matter of Brexit. If these are not worrying developments in countries that hold themselves out as models to the rest of the world, then I don’t know what are.

Derek Griffiths Llandaff, Cardiff