6-Analyse the differences in the power of US and UK Supreme Court justices

Paragraph 1: Security of Tenure and Independence

Weaker Counterargument (UK)

  • Explanation: UK Supreme Court justices are politically neutral and uphold the rule of law through judicial independence.

  • Evidence: Appointed by independent selection commissions; cannot be removed arbitrarily and serve until the mandatory retirement age (currently 75).

  • However: This security is still limited compared to the US due to the retirement age and the fusion of powers in the UK system (Lord Chancellor is part of all 3 branches).

Stronger Argument (US)

  • Explanation: US justices have far greater security of tenure and constitutional protections, which grant them stronger independence and thus more long-term influence.

  • Evidence: Article III guarantees life tenure and prevents salary reductions. Justices can only be removed via impeachment (extremely rare).

  • Evidence: Structure of nine justices unchanged since 1869 shows resistance to court-packing (structural independence).

  • Comparative theory: Structural – the US Constitution entrenches stronger institutional protections for justices compared to the UK’s more flexible uncodified system.

Paragraph 2: Appointment and Political Influence

Weaker Counterargument (UK)

  • Explanation: UK appointments are apolitical and based on merit, maintaining judicial neutrality.

  • Evidence: Justices are selected by the Judicial Appointments Commission; Parliament plays no direct role in approval. No public hearings.

  • However: This limits public scrutiny and democratic legitimacy. Less visibility of the ideological background of judges.

Stronger Argument (US)

  • Explanation: Although politicised, US appointment process gives justices significant ideological and political weight, extending their power far beyond legal interpretation.

  • Evidence: Senate Judiciary Committee confirms appointments (e.g. Kavanaugh hearings), allowing for influence by party politics and media.

  • Evidence: Trump’s legacy through appointing 3 justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) shifted the ideological balance.

  • Evidence: Justices can disappoint appointers (Barrett voting more moderately; Kennedy and Roberts as swing votes).

  • Comparative theory: Individual – US presidents deliberately appoint justices to influence policy long-term, unlike in the UK where judicial appointments are depoliticised.

Paragraph 3: Scope of Powers – Judicial Review and Rights Protection

Weaker Counterargument (UK)

  • Explanation: UKSC can influence government through judicial review and human rights cases, especially since the Human Rights Act 1998.

  • Evidence: Supreme Court struck down Boris Johnson’s 2019 prorogation of Parliament as unlawful (Miller II case).

  • However: UK Parliament remains sovereign; courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament – only issue declarations of incompatibility.

Stronger Argument (US)

  • Explanation: The US Supreme Court has power of constitutional judicial review, allowing it to invalidate laws and executive orders.

  • Evidence: Marbury v. Madison (1803) established this power.

  • Evidence: Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade; Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalised same-sex marriage federally.

  • Evidence: Boumediene v. Bush (2008) struck down government detention practices.

  • Comparative theory: Rational – US justices act more as political actors due to their ability to directly shape national policy, unlike the UKSC's constrained powers within parliamentary sovereignty.