Judiciary Flashcards
(18 cards)
- Explain and analyse the significance of three functions of the US Supreme Court. p372-372 and your notes.
P – Acts as the final court of appeal.
E - The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary. The losing side in a lower court can appeal to the next court level until finally reaching the Supreme Court. There are 13 circuit courts (or appeals courts) below the Supreme Court, the final court of appeal Sets legal precedents that must be followed by all courts nationwide. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) – 7-2 in support of cake makers. The Supreme Court ruled that the commission had infringed on the right to freedom of religion of the owner of the cake shop after it ruled it could not refuse to make a cake to celebrate same-sex marriage.
A – Significant as it can set a judicial precedent for other similar cases.
P – Judicial review
E – Means the power to declare acts unconstitutional. This includes acts of Congress and acts of the President. Roe Vs Wade (1973) ruled bans on abortion compromised the rights of a women under the 14th Amendment.
A – Significant as it allows the Supreme Court to check the powers of the other two branches of government and also allows them to essentially act as unelected legislators.
P – Some have interpreted its function to update the Constitution and apply is to modern life.
E - Obergefell Vs Hodges (2015)
- Explain and analyse three aspects of the selection and appointment of Supreme Court justices. p373-378 and your notes. (textbook)
P – Presidential nomination
E - The president’s team initially draws up a list of possible nominees, taking into account suggestions from the president’s political advisers, party and legal experts. Presidents aim to appoint justices who will share their view of how the Constitution should be interpreted, so conservative presidents nominate conservative justices and liberal presidents nominate liberal justices. While running for the presidency, Trump promised that he would choose judicial nominees from candidates suggested by the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society.
P – Checks
E - Possible candidates are short-listed and background-checked by the White House’s lawyers and the FBI. Every aspect of a candidate’s professional and personal life is considered, with the aim of uncovering anything that might count against them in the confirmation process. Justice Anthony Kennedy was interviewed by the FBI for more than ten hours and asked questions on topics ranging from his sexual history to his treatment of animals
P – Senate Confirmation
E – Once the president has made a choice, their nominee is considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The nominee completes a lengthy questionnaire covering their previous experience and rulings. Witnesses help the committee to assess the nominee’s suitability and the nominee is interviewed by the committee in a televised hearing. Once the nomination hearings have concluded, the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on the nominee. Justices used to command more bipartisan support, but this has been lacking in recent years. Used to be more partisan support for justices - Ginsburg 96-3 in 1993. and Kavanaugh in 2018 by an almost unanimous 50-48 vote. Only a small minority of 12 have been rejected, the most recent being Bork in 1987 who was denounced by Democrats by his extreme views, believing the civil rights act was state coercion and that the 1st Amendment only protected political speech and not any other forms of expression.
USEFUL TO KNOW:
Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Court in March 2016. Republicans held the Senate and declared that they would not consider Garland as there was a presidential election due in November. Democrats were furious, arguing that such an action was unprecedented, and that the Senate should begin hearings as the president had a right to nominate whomever he chose. Four years later, a vacancy on the Court again arose during an election year. Following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in late September 2020, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barratt to the Supreme Court. Despite the presidential election being just weeks away, Republicans were eager to take advantage of their Senate majority and confirm Barrett quickly. More controversially, Trump made it clear that he wanted Barrett confirmed before the election so that she could potentially rule in his favour if he chose to appeal the election result to the Supreme Court. In the event, the Supreme Court refused to hear cases regarding the 2020 election results
- Explain and analyse three arguments in support of the current system of selection and appointment of Supreme Court justices. p373-378 and your notes.
P – System of intense checks and balances
E - Justice Anthony Kennedy was interviewed by the FBI for more than ten hours and asked questions on topics ranging from his sexual history to his treatment of animals. Also scrutinised by the Senate Judiciary Committee including a TV interview and witness character statements.
P - Senate confirmation is a check on the power of the president, as the nominee must win the support of a majority of senators.
E – Bork (Reagan’s nomination) in 1987 who was blocked by Democrats by his extreme views, believing the civil rights act was state coercion and that the 1st Amendment only protected political speech and not any other forms of expression. 125 accepted, only 12 ever rejected.
P – Independence once appointed
E – Have life tenure’s. This means that the president’s ability to influence them ends once they are appointed, as they cannot be removed from office for making a judgement that the president dislikes. Trump’s nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh judged in Trump v Vance (2020) that the president did not have an absolute right to withhold his tax returns and financial records from an investigation.
- Explain and analyse three reasons why the composition of the Supreme Court is important. p378-379 and your notes.
P – Majority opinions on the Supreme Court decide laws so having an equal balance is important
E - For years, For years, Anthony Kennedy (served 1988–2018) was known as the ‘swing vote’ on the Court. Kennedy was appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan and frequently made conservative judgements on issues such as gun control and campaign finance. However, he also made liberal judgements on abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and affirmative action. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for Obergefell v Hodges (2015), which legalised same-sex marriage across the USA. This was important as the court was not dominated by an ideology which could impact it’s judgement.
P – They could allow their judgements to be influenced by their political ideologies
E – This is evident in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) passed due to Conservative Supermajority voted 6-3 despite it being against public opinion. Further, they ended race conscious admissions at universities across the US, delivering a blow to the greater cause of greater student diversity. Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a stark dissent saying the ruling meant it would “take longer for racism to leave us”.
P – Diversity is important for understanding the impacts of the judgements they will make
E - Since the Supreme Court first convened in 1790, 116 justices have served on the bench. Of those, 108 have been White men. However, last 2 appointments women, and one a woman of colour. In 2016, Sotomayor said the court could use more diversity. “A different perspective can permit you to more fully understand the arguments that are before you”. Increasingly more diverse. Diversity of life experience and perspectives also enriches deliberations among judges. One study found, for example, that greater representation of Black judges on the bench led to heightened perceptions among Black Americans that the courts were legitimate – increased trust.
- Explain and analyse three arguments against the current system of selection and appointment of Supreme Court justices. p373-378 and your notes.
P – Senate votes ineffective as simply along party lines, in recent years there has been less bipartisan support for justices.
E – Politicisation of the nomination process. Gorsuch in 2017 was supported by all Republicans and rejected by all but 3 Democrats, party also attempted to launch a “filibuster” and Kavanaugh in 2018 was supported by all but 1 Republican and rejected by all but 1 Democrats – Kennedy had been a swing judge whose retirement meant Republicans could establish the first Conservative court in decades. Kavanaugh was faced with sexual abuse allegations and these were leaked. A second women then accused him of misconduct, he responded that to the Democrats accusing them of a “coordinated character assassination” revealing himself to be a partisan nominee. Appointments no longer focused on electing an unbiased judge and critics have argued Republicans did not take the sexual assault seriously or the fact that he lied under oath showing they were more focused on their greater goal of a Conservative majority.
A – Ginsburg – Approved by the Senate 96-3 with just 3 Republicans voting against her.
P – President can nominate candidates who reflect their political leaning.
E - Justices may be selected for their record on issues such as abortion as opposed to judicial excellence. Their rulings on previous cases are closely scrutinised to see how they might vote in the future. While running for the presidency, Trump promised that he would choose judicial nominees from candidates suggested by the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society. Trump has also not consulted the ABA before announcing his nominees. The American Bar Association has played a vital non-partisan role in the appointments process since 1953 as they advise on the suitability and qualifications of candidates. Thus, the Conservatives have made it clear that they are more concerned with filling federal courts with judges of an ideology rather than ensuring the judges appointed for life are really the most qualified.
A – Trump V Vance
P – Too political and can result in a violation of rights
E – In March 2016, Republicans held the Senate and declared that they would not consider Garland as there was a presidential election due in November. Democrats were furious, arguing that such an action was unprecedented, and that the Senate should begin hearings as the president had a right to nominate whomever he chose.
- Explain and analyse three ways that the Supreme Court performs its role as guardian and protector of the Constitution. p381-383 and your notes. (textbook)
P – Strict Constructionism
E - A judicial approach in which the text of the Constitution is followed as closely as possible when making judgements, even when applying it to modern situations. Strict constructionists are closely associated with originalists - believe the language and words in the Constitution should be interpreted in the way in which the framers intended them to be read, even if this now appears outdated. Tend to make conservative judgements but not always - Indeed, in 2020, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion on the landmark ruling that outlawed discrimination by employers because of sexual orientation or gender. District of Colombia Vs Heller (2008) clarified that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defence within one’s home. Planned Parenthood V Casey – Upheld the previous ruling/precedent made in Roe V Wade.
P – Loose Constructionism
E – Constitution as “a living document”. A judicial approach in which the Constitution is interpreted more freely, according to a modern context. This allows the interpretation of the document to evolve over time. In their view, the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted by the Court to suit the changing needs of society over time. Obergefell vs Hodges.
P – More nuanced approach to interpreting the constitution.
E – Flexible interpretations. Chief Justice John Roberts explained at his confirmation hearings that he ‘does not have an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation’ and instead would ‘follow the approach or approaches that seem most suited in the particular case’.
P – Originalism
E – The words of the constitution are interpreted according to the intentions of the framer
- Explain and analyse three ways in which the Supreme Court is politically significant. p384-387 and your notes. (textbook)
P – Has become a quasi-legislative body
E - Through their decisions on certain cases, unelected justices have created new rights for Americans. Some argue it has moved beyond its constitutional role of interpreting the law to usurping Congress’s role in making the law. The text of the Constitution does not mention abortion or same-sex marriage, nor did framers have any intention of authorising either when they wrote the Constitution. Accused of ‘legislating from the bench’ or making rulings that interpret the Constitution in such a radically new way that it has the effect of making a new law. – Obergefell V Hodges.
P – Played an important role in the development of federalism by balancing federal supremacy with state sovereignty.
E – Has frequently made judgements that overruled state laws. Brown v Topeka Board of Education (1954) - Thirteen African-American parents from Topeka, Kansas, brought this lawsuit after their children were denied access to the local all-white school, forcing them to travel miles to attend an all-black school. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) supported the legal challenge. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ was fundamentally unequal, and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives citizens the right to ‘equal protection’ under a state’s laws. Brown v Topeka is arguably the most significant landmark case in US history. It ended more than half a century of legal segregation and transformed the rights of African-American citizens. In the South the decision was seen as an attack on states’ rights by the federal Supreme Court However, the Supreme Court has also defended states’ rights against Congress. Roe V Wade (2022) - Overturned Roe V Wade (1973) allowing the states to legislate on abortion individually, it no longer being a constitutional right. Abortion is now completely banned in 12 states with many
P – Can intervene in the electoral process
E - Bush V Gore (2000)
- Explain and analyse three examples of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Bill of Rights. p383 and your notes.
P – 1st Amendment - freedom of speech - Political donations are seen as an expression of free speech and have been protected by the Court.
E - ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) the Court controversially ruled that corporations, unions and associations had the same rights to free speech as individuals, so could make political donations and political adverts in the same way as an individual.
P – 2nd Amendment - gun rights - amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, and most argue that this would be infringed by any form of gun control.
E – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” - In District of Columbia v Heller (2008), the Court struck down a law banning handgun ownership and ruled that the amendment does confer an individual right to bear arms.
P –1st Amendment – Freedom of religion - The Court must strike a balance between avoiding an ‘established’ religion (one adopted by the state) and allowing citizens to freely practise their religion.
E - ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. (2014) the Court struck down part of the Affordable Care Act 2010, which made family run businesses contribute to health insurance that might be used for contraception
- Explain and analyse three examples of the significance of judicial review. p372-273 and your notes.
P – Obergefell V Hodges (2015) – Legalised gay marriage across all states– social and cultural progress - Landmark rulings have led to politically significant changes to the law
P – United States v Texas (2016) struck down Obama’s executive order giving an indefinite delay in deportation to around 5 million illegal immigrants – check on the executive
P – Bush V Gore (2000)- The Court has also intervened in the electoral process. The 2000 presidential election was so close that it depended on which candidate could win Florida’s Electoral College votes. After a machine recount, George W. Bush led Al Gore by just 327 votes out of 6 million cast. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual recount in certain counties, a decision that Bush appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Court ruled 5-4 in Bush v Gore (2000) that a recount within the timeframe set in Florida was unconstitutional. This was one of the most controversial decisions ever made by the Court because it decided the general election. All conservative justices voted in Bush’s favour, and all four justices on the liberal wing of the Court voted against
- Explain and analyse three ways in which the Supreme Court has been criticised for being too political. p384-387 and your notes.
P - This unelected body can make important changes to the most controversial areas of public policy.
E - The Court has been criticised for acting as a ‘third house of the legislature’ by effectively making rather than interpreting law. This means their power is unchecked by election cycles and term limits. Obergefell V Hodges (2015)
P – Involved in decisions that massively effect important political events and policies.
E - The Court effectively decided the result of the presidential election in Bush v Gore (2000).
P – Going against the national mandate
E – Roe v Wade overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).
P – Nomination and confirmation process too politicised
- Explain and analyse three ways in which the Supreme Court can be defended from the allegation of being too political. p384-387 and your notes
P - Justices are independent and free from political influence once appointed.
E – Trump V Vance (2020). Trump attempted to block a subpoena of his tax returns. An investigation requested access to these which he argued he should not have to give because of his executive privilege. The court rules 7-2 that he should be forced to produce them. Significant as Kavanaugh and Gorsuch who Trump had appointed voted against him.
P - Judicial activism can be necessary to ensure all citizens enjoy equal protection under the law.
E - Brown v Topeka (1954).
P - Congress acts as a check on an overly political Supreme Court: if it wished to, it could initiate a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court’s decision
E – The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971), by granting eighteen-year-olds the right to vote in elections at all levels, overturned the Court’s ruling in Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) that Congress could set age qualifications only for federal elections not for state and local elections. Also the 16th Amendment allowed the introduction of a federal income tax after the court struck down earlier laws allowing it to do so.
A - VERY DIFFICULT! Two-thirds of both houses of Congress have to vote to introduce an amendment, or two-thirds of states can call a constitutional convention to propose amendments. Amendments require the formal support (ratification) of ¾ of states.
P – Loose Constructionism. It should adapt to changes.
- Explain and analyse the significance of three landmark rulings of the Supreme Court/ ways in which the court has protected civil rights
P – Citizens United Vs FEC (2010)
E - The Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and thus ruled that corporations, unions and associations had the same rights to free speech as individuals.
A - The landmark ruling led to the creation of a new type of independent expenditure only political action committee, known as a Super PAC. Pressure groups and corporations can donate unlimited sums to Super PACs. In the 2020 election, Super PACs spent over $2 billion dollars.
P – Obergefell Vs Hodges (2015)
E - Obergefell married his husband in Maryland (where same-sex marriage was legal), but the state of Ohio (where same-sex marriage was illegal) did not recognise their marriage. Obergefell made a legal challenge that reached the Supreme Court. this judgement focused on the ‘equal protection’ clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled 5-4, with the majority arguing that the right to marry was fundamental, supported by the equal protection clause. Obergefell v Hodges legalised same-sex marriage across the USA, giving same-sex couples the same rights as any others. Overturned the law in 26 states.
A – Significant as the majority of justices took a loose constructionist approach and interpreted the Constitution in the context of modern liberal ideas about sexuality and because a fundamental change was made to US law, by an unelected body. Fuelled the message that America’s traditional values were being threatened.
P - Brown v Topeka Board of Education (1954)
E – Thirteen African-American parents from Topeka, Kansas, brought this lawsuit after their children were denied access to the local all-white school, forcing them to travel miles to attend an all-black school. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) supported the legal challenge. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ was fundamentally unequal, and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives citizens the right to ‘equal protection’ under a state’s laws.
A - Brown v Topeka is arguably the most significant landmark case in US history. It ended more than half a century of legal segregation and transformed the rights of African-American citizens. In the South the decision was seen as an attack on states’ rights by the federal Supreme Court. It led to confrontation at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, when the state governor supported the high school’s decision not to admit nine African-American students: President Dwight D. Eisenhower eventually ordered federal troops to escort the ‘Little Rock nine’ into school. It was a key victory for the growing civil rights movement, and the NAACP.
P – Roe vs Wade – see Q below
- Explain and analyse three rulings regarding the public policy on abortion in the US. p390-393 and your notes.
P – Roe V Wade (1973)
E - McCorvey was pregnant, but abortion was illegal in Texas, where she lived. Two young female lawyers took on her case and challenged the right of Texan law to deny her an abortion. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that women had an unrestricted right to an abortion in the first stage (trimester) of pregnancy. Considered the 14th Amendment which reads, ‘nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law’. The Court found that this implied a ‘right to privacy’ from the government, which Texas had breached by denying McCorvey an abortion. The ruling allowed states to regulate abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy, but only in the interests of the mother’s health. In the third and final trimester, when the foetus could survive outside the womb, abortion could be banned unless there was a risk to maternal life or health. The ruling made the laws in 17 states that criminalised abortion unconstitutional.
A - The ruling had the same effect as passing a law to legalise abortion, so Conservatives criticised unelected justices for ‘legislating from the bench’. Has become a major issues in elections and further court cases.
P – Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt (2016)
E - The conservative strategy of using legislation to reduce access to abortions led state legislatures to pass a series of restrictions. Pro-choice advocates labelled these Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, and criticised them as medically unnecessary and intended to reduce the availability of abortions. Examples include restrictions on the corridor width of the medical facility where the abortion is carried out, a specific size requirement for the room where the procedure is done, and a minimum distance from the nearest hospital (which clinics in rural areas could not comply with). These restrictions led to the closure of many abortion clinics in states with legislatures hostile to abortion. Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt (2016) was a challenge to several TRAP laws enacted by the Texas state legislature. The Court ruled 5-3 that these restrictions placed an ‘undue burden’ on women by failing to provide a medical benefit significant enough to justify limiting access to abortion.
P – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
E - The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act—a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Court concluding that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion 6-3 with all conservatives voting to overturn and all liberals opposing them. As a result, the Court’s decision returned the issue of abortion regulation to the elected branches.
- Explain and analyse three ways in which structural theory could be used to study the selection of members of the US and UK Supreme Courts
P – Role of the executive
E - Appointments to all positions in the senior judiciary were once made by the monarch, on the advice of the prime minister and the Lord Chancellor. However, now the Lord Chancellor can only reject one name or ask the JAC to reconsider once for good reason and the Prime Minister, once notified, must recommend the candidate to the queen. In the USA, the president nominates a candidate. While running for the presidency, Trump promised that he would choose judicial nominees from candidates suggested by the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society.
P – Roles of the legislature
E – In the UK, the legislature plays no role in selecting members of the Supreme Court whilst in the US, appointments are confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee who votes on the nominee.
P – Formal systems and requirements
E – The UK has an independent structure concerned with appointments whilst the USA does not. The position of UK Supreme Court justice is advertised, and candidates apply as they would for any other job. An independent selection considers possible nominees and make a ‘selection’ based on merit. UK justices must have been either a senior judge for at least 2 years, or a solicitor in one of the UK’s highest courts, or a barrister, for 15 years. In the USA there are no official requirements to be a Supreme Court justice. The US does have the American Bar Association which has played a vital non-partisan role in the appointments process as they advise on the suitability and qualifications of candidates. However, Trump has also not consulted the ABA before announcing his nominees. Further, candidates are checked by the White House for every aspect of a candidate’s professional and personal life is considered, with the aim of uncovering anything that might count against them in the confirmation process. Justice Anthony Kennedy was interviewed by the FBI for more than ten hours and asked questions on topics ranging from his sexual history to his treatment of animals.
- Explain and analyse three ways in which structural theory could be used to study the relative independence of the judiciary in the USA and UK.
P – Security of tenure
E - Allows justices to make independent judgements. They can only be removed during their term of office for wrongdoing, by impeachment in the USA or via the judicial complaints procedure in the UK. UK judges have fixed salaries and are guaranteed their positions until age 70. In the US, they are guaranteed their position until their resignations of death making it harder for politicians to bring influence to bear by threatening to sack or suspend them
P – Separation of powers
E - The judiciaries are also structurally and physically independent from the other two branches of government. Constitution reform act and relocation. This independence allows the judiciaries to rule against the government as they see fit. Proroguing parliament. Trump’s tax returns
A - In the USA, the ability of presidents to appoint either ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ justices means that the Supreme Court usually has a political leaning.
P – Appointments – SEE ABOVE!
- Explain and analyse three ways in which structural theory can be used to explain the similarities and differences between the US and UK Supreme Courts.
P – Entrenched constitution vs Parliamentary sovereignty
E - The Constitution is sovereign in the USA and provides a set of ‘fundamental laws’ for US justices to interpret when ruling on government action or laws passed by Congress. When they make politically controversial judgements of how the Constitution should be applied, they are often accused of ‘legislating from the bench’. This does not occur in the UK, where the principle of parliamentary sovereignty gives the Supreme Court a narrower remit.
P – Politicised vs independent appointments
P – Both have security of tenure
- Explain and analyse three ways in which rational theory could be used to study the impact of the US and UK Supreme Courts
P – US more activist, UK more constrained
E - Individual justices make decisions based on their own legal preferences and philosophy. In the USA, the presence of strongly liberal and conservative justices means that judgements are frequently controversial and justices may be accused of judicial activism. UK justices generally follow a more restrained judicial approach. UK judges typically follow precedent and defer to parliament. However, some US justices believe their role is to interpret the ‘living constitution’ in a modern context.
P – Appointments and ideology
P – External Pressure
E – Pressures from social media and politicians. Increasing in the UK. In 2017 the UK’s lord chief justice said that social media ‘abuse’ put judges under ‘intolerable pressure’. “Enemies of the people” – Daily Mail. David Davies criticised the Supreme courts rulings that MPs should have a say before triggering article 60. In the US, Trump used Twitter to criticise ‘so-called judges’ and ‘slow and political courts’ in 2017, condemned the court system as ‘broken and unfair’ in 2018 and described Trump v Vance (2020) as ‘a political prosecution’, comparing it to a ‘witch hunt’. Further, pressure groups in the US have more of an impact – NAACP.
- Explain and analyse three ways in which cultural theory can be used to explain the similarities and differences between the US and UK Supreme Court.
P – Both cultures prize rule of law
E - This tradition dates back to Magna Carta (1215), which established the principle that no one can be imprisoned unlawfully. The new US republic inherited these values from its previous existence as 13 British colonies. Both countries pride themselves on representing the best of the Western liberal legal tradition, in which a strong judiciary holds the government to account and the rule of law applies
P – Both cultures arguably have a history of discrimination - whilst in the US, the courts have intervened, in the UK this has been done by parliament
E – Obergefell V Hodges. Brown V Board of education in the US. 1965 and then 1976 Race Relations Acts established to prevent race discrimination. It made race discrimination unlawful in employment, training, housing, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services. Equality Act 2010 – 116 statutes protecting race, gender, sexuality, religion, disability and more.
P – Increased politicisation of the supreme court
E – Populism on the rise in the form of Trumpism in the USA, and the UK electorate’s decision to leave the EU and then give Johnson a majority general election victory in 2019. Populists paint themselves as the true representatives of the people, and have criticised the judiciary for supposedly thwarting the will of the people. The Daily Mail’s ‘Enemies of the People’ headline suggested a cultural battle between overly liberal judges and the people. This politicises the judiciaries, and may diminish public respect for their decisions
