Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has too much influence over the executive

Weaker Counterargument: The Supreme Court merely acts as a legal interpreter, ensuring the executive acts within the law rather than having excessive influence.
Explanation: The Court’s role is to uphold legality, not to govern or overrule government policy; it prevents unlawful executive actions.
Evidence: 2019 Miller case blocked Boris Johnson’s unlawful prorogation of Parliament, reinforcing rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.
Stronger Argument: The Supreme Court’s decisions can effectively limit executive power, influencing government actions and policy direction.
Explanation: By striking down executive actions or forcing government to follow Parliament, the Court exercises real political influence.
Evidence: Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2016 Miller case requiring Parliament’s consent to trigger Article 50 forced government to submit to parliamentary control; blocked unlawful prorogation in 2019, affecting executive strategy.

Weaker Counterargument: Constitutional reforms and judicial safeguards limit the Court’s influence and ensure independence without political overreach.
Explanation: The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 separated judiciary from legislature, guaranteeing judicial neutrality and limiting political power of judges.
Evidence: Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) controls appointments to reduce government interference; judges have security of tenure and cannot be removed for decisions.
Stronger Argument: Despite safeguards, critics argue the Court is politicized and exerts excessive influence beyond its judicial remit.
Explanation: Media and political figures have accused the Court of liberal bias and undue interference, especially after high-profile Brexit rulings.
Evidence: Right-wing criticism post-Miller cases; media attacks calling judges "enemies of the people"; ministers like Priti Patel and Dominic Cummings publicly criticized judges.

Weaker Counterargument: The Supreme Court cannot make or stop legislation and has no direct control over government policy, limiting its true power.
Explanation: The Court interprets law but ultimate power lies with Parliament and government, which can amend laws or legislate around rulings.
Evidence: Supreme Court could not stop the Rwanda Plan despite judicial scrutiny; Gender Recognition Reform Bill vetoed by Westminster Parliament, not the Court.
Stronger Argument: However, judicial reviews and rulings can delay, challenge, and embarrass the executive, influencing political decisions indirectly.
Explanation: The high volume of judicial reviews and landmark rulings forces government to reconsider or amend policies, showing real influence.
Evidence: 2,400 judicial reviews in 2022 (though fewer than 2013) show ongoing executive scrutiny; Supreme Court blocked second Scottish Independence Referendum 2022, impacting government plans.