comparative notes

Basis for and relative extent of powers

the role of the supreme courts of the two countries is to uphold constitutional law by interpreting its meaning in cases brought to the court. The US and UK supreme courts both can overturn the action of public bodies if they break constitutional rules. The Prime Minister, for example, can be limited by court rulings as Boris Johnson was in 2019 when he prorogued parliament. The court declared that his suspension of parliament, closing down the chamber for a break during Brexit negotiations, was unconstitutional.

Despite the similarity, the two courts have very different levels of power:

relationship with Congress and parliament

The US Supreme Court has considerably more power because it rules on the sovereign, codified constitution. The principle of constitutional sovereignty allows the court to overturn any institution in the United states, including in validating acts of Congress. In the United Kingdom, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the Supreme Court is more limited as it cannot overturn acts of parliament. In the United states the courts are effectively above Congress rose in the United Kingdom courts are subordinate to parliament.

The constitutional amendment process

the concept of parliamentary sovereignty also limits the courts because it means that parliament can easy overturn a ruling of the Supreme Court of it strongly opposes the outcome. The entrenched constitution in the United states makes us almost impossible; If the president or Congress loser case then they are unlikely to be able to alter the constitution to overcome the ruling of the court.

Level of authority

the constitution has enormous authority amongst U.S. citizens and politicians. Having a codified document, which has high levels of respect, increases the authority of the Supreme Court as the guardians of the constitution. In the United Kingdom, there is no single document for people to identify with and support. This lack of awareness of key constitutional rules give the Supreme Court lower levels of recognition and authority in the United Kingdom as an upper holding a revered document as justices do in the United states.

Relative independence

The independence of the courts requires freedom from external pressure, especially powerful institutions such as governments. This independence is essential if justice is A to give ruling space on a neutral interpretation of the constitution and control against politicians if they break constitutional rules. The following areas affect the level of independence:

security of tenure

justices in both countries have high levels of independence because they cannot be removed from office unless they themselves break the law. The executive branch cannot sack justices in either country, allowing them to exercise their power without fear of political repercussions. In both countries just as his Canon do give rulings undermine the executive in terms of their power policy priorities.

Appointment process

all could be the appointment process in the United states threatens the independence of the Supreme Court, as justices are selected by the president and ratified by the Senate. Justin says in the United Kingdom are appointed by an independent body, position appointments committee, and not the Prime Minister. This factor affects neutrality much more than it affects independence because the president makes an ideological choice. Once in office, however, a justice is not at all accountable to the president who appointed them. Many presidents find that their own appointees give rulings against them.

External pressure

in both countries comment a controversial nature and huge importance of constitutional cases means that there is often pressure on justices. In both countries are public and senior politicians have put pressure on individual justices. Arguably, justices in the United states experienced much greater external pressure, in part because the major constitutional issues that court deals with-such as guns, abortion and gay rights-untested issues on which US society is deeply divided

effectiveness of the protection of rights

the Supreme Court of the United states in the United Kingdom play a critical role in the protection of rights. They do this by upholding the civil rights outlined in the constitution of each country. In the United Kingdom the main legal protections for individuals are contained in the Human Rights Act 1998, where is the United states constitutional rights outlined in the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment to the US constitution. The differences in constitutional agreement suggested the courts in the United states are likely to provide much greater protection of rights compared to the United Kingdom. The two main differences are:

parliamentary versus constitutional sovereignty, which means that the US courts possess greater power to protect rights.

The entrenched versus UN entrenched nature of the constitution to mean to the UK court rulings protect rights could be overturned by a new act of parliament.

There are reasons, however, why this might not be the case. These reasons might be used to address that in practise there are similar levels of rights protection in each country or even that rights are better protected in the United Kingdom :

in practise, the UK Supreme Court has issued many declarations of incompatibility using the Human Rights Act of suggest that parliament may have limited rights. Parliament has responded in virtually every case by amending or passing or that overcame the rights restriction.

The level of rights protection depends on the interpretation and possible buyers of justices in each country. The current US Supreme Court has a strong conservative bias, which means it is less likely protect rights compared to a liberal majority court. Having said that, the UK Supreme Court has given rulings in favour of the government, allowing limits on the rights of the individual.

All could be there is a stronger culture of rights protection in the United Kingdom the United states. the United states is increasingly a divided society with strongly conflicting values on rights Bates issues. There is considerable conflict over the issue of abortion, guns, Gay and transgender rights, and race in the United states whereas in the United Kingdom there is a much greater consensus. This suggests that within the United Kingdom there are fewer challenges to individual rights from society itself.

Effectiveness of interest groups in the protection of civil rights

Both the United States and United Kingdom have a significant range of interest groups that seek to protect civil liberties. In the United states, groups such as the ACLU have campaigned on the full range of constitutional rights, where some interest groups such as the NA ACP have sought to protect the rights of racial minorities. In the United Kingdom comment liberty has campaigned to protect many different rights rose groups such as the LGBT foundation campaign for gay and transgender rights specifically. As we have seen throughout this section, a major similarity between the United States and United Kingdom is that interest groups can make use of the legal system to challenge individual rights abuses in the courts. There are three reasons why US interest groups might be more successful in protecting rights in their UK counterparts:

constitutional status of rights-entrenched sovereign constitution of the United states is likely to allow US interest groups to be more successful in protecting civil rights than those in the United Kingdom.

Access points-The US political system provides a greater number of powerful institutions that interest groups can choose from when trying to gain access to politicians. It is generally easier for civil rights groups to find a like minded majority in one of the main political institutions. In the United Kingdom, with its concentration of power in the hands of the executive, interest groups might find it more difficult to exert political influence if the government is not receptive to their views.

Weak parties-low level of party unity in the United states can present an opportunity for civil rights groups to successfully persuade individual politicians. In the United Kingdom, the higher tendency to vote as a group, whipped by party leaders, may prevent civil rights groups from gaining support from individual politicians.

While the political and constitutional system in the right state appears to allow interest groups to be more successful in protecting civil liberties than those in the United Kingdom, this may not always be the case in practise. The ideology of the government of the day, or the ideology of the majority in the court, can affect the extent to which civil liberties can be protected.

Theoretical approaches in comparative courts and rights

	Similarities	Differences
Rational	the rational approach can be used to show that individuals in the United States and United Kingdom both seek to protect their individual liberties. They attempt to protect their own self-interest, or that of the group they represent, by challenging the political institutions in court. Individuals will attempt to promote Their own civil liberties using the Human Rights Act in United Kingdom and the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment in the United states. The liberal value system of both countries shows respect for individual rights and encourages people to pursue their personal freedoms.	Arguably there are differences in the value system of the two countries. In the United states, individuals are more likely to press with freedom from the government. The foundation of the United states is based on rejection of excessive government power, which created a right space value system. In the United Kingdom, individualism and concerns about excessive government power a less prominent. Arguably Britons are more accepting of government power and social responsibility for others. Was there is a danger of generalising too much, this stressor individuals in the United states are more likely to pursue individual rights claims.
Cultural	In both the United states United Kingdom come the cultural approach can show how individuals can develop group identities and values to pursue their collective rights. At specific points in US in UK history, members of social groups have campaigned for group rights will stop the black lives matter movement and each country is an example of individuals that have worked together to promote common values of the group, for example through direct action and demonstrations	the culture approach can account for a significant difference in the appointment process of justice is to the US and UK supreme courts. In the United states, the president and Senate may nominate and ratified justice says come up respectively. They tend to make ideological appointments that will please politicians and voters, and presidents are expected to operate according to the values of their party group. Such cultural considerations are not possible in the UK system, where justices are appointed by an independent committee. the United Kingdom as a whole has a stronger culture of maintaining an independent and neutral judiciary compared to the United states
structural	in both countries the legal system empowers justices on the Supreme Court to protect civil rights. The courts have the power to overturn infringements of civil liberties when presented with cases from individuals. Justices and each country equally limited because they cannot initiate cases but must wait for constitutional claim to be taken to the courts.	In the United states, the entrenched sovereign constitution provides a powerful structure that gives much greater power to US justice is. UK justices do not have recourse to a codified constitution making their power and authority more limited than their US counterparts.