It has been made clear within recent times that when it comes to major events or decisions the Supreme Court has the power and ability to intervene and directly oppose the government. Should our law courts have more power over politics then our elected government representatives?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Conservative Party promised within their manifesto a \u201cfirmer and fairer Australian-style-points based immigration system\u201d which allowed the government to rank and select immigrants with large impact or specific skill sets.\u00a0 The Conservative Party used the relocation of specific illegal immigrants to Rwanda to accomplish this policy point. However, this has been blocked by the supreme court, as was their ability to \u201cget Brexit done\u201d using royal prerogative under Theresa May. The supreme court once again removed both this right and this decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The argument is not whether the most recent ruling was right or not. The argument is: should the intervention by the Supreme Court even be allowed in the first place? Is there a direct impact on the governance and direction of the country, a direct interference in the health and wellbeing of the UK\u2019s democracy? In that regard it is arguable that due to the influence of the Supreme Court it could be said that Britain is turning into a less and less democratic country and more of a totalitarian style one which has no regards for the will of its people. In addition, the unelected judges who rule on these cases may have personal political views which could interfere with their decisions and are not held accountable for these views.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n