Supreme Court President Sends Warning To Boris Johnson About 'Intolerable' Change

The President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has warned that it would be "intolerable" to force his judges to face public appointment hearings.

Lord Reed refused to exclude his resignation if the Conservative government "politicized" the judiciary in the context of a major disruption of the justice system.

Activists fear crackdown on judges after Boris Johnson announced a "Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission" to "restore confidence" in the legal system.

The review, chaired by Cabinet Minister Michael Gove, could crack down on what the Conservatives claim to be "activist" judicial reviews against government policy.

Former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox last month suggested that Supreme Court justices could face pre-appointment hearings in Parliament. Mr. Cox insisted that it would be like Canada, not the US "confirmation" hearings.

But the new attorney general, Suella Braverman, has taken a firm stand against the justice system, demanding that the government "regain control of the judiciary".

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "We fully respect the independence of the judiciary and have no plans for a political appointment".

Today, the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, lobbied on what would force him to resign.

He replied, "The type of system they have in the United States would be unacceptable.

"I know some of the judges who have gone through this process. It's really intolerable."

Lord Reed said he had discussed the matter with the Lord Chancellor, and would be surprised if the matter was not consulted with the judges.

He added: "Whether we want to say something about it will depend on what has been discussed.

"It is clear that the subjects of judicial review and human rights are pending at this time.

"And these are perfectly appropriate questions for the government and parliament to consider. If they are purely political questions, I would not expect this court to want to get involved in this discussion.

"It would be different if there were issues (which) had a more direct impact on the functioning of the courts themselves and on the administration of justice.

"For example, judicial appointments are a subject in which the court clearly has an interest. And the proposals for judicial review might be of concern to us, but that would depend on what they were."

Lord Reed insisted that judicial review – which overturned a series of conservative policies, including court fees – is not "politics by other means".

He added: "Judges are very aware of the risk of being challenged on strictly political rather than legal grounds.

"They reject them and carefully avoid getting lost in genuinely political matters.

"It should not be assumed that judges are impatient to rule on political issues. The real position is actually quite the opposite."

Boris Johnson has previously hinted that appointees to the Supreme Court could face confirmation hearings by MPs, saying they should be subject to "some form of responsibility".

Prime Minister and his chief counselor Dominic Cummings were reportedly furious at last year's court ruling that his prorogation of Parliament was illegal.

Lord Reed stated that he was not against greater political involvement in the appointment of judges, as long as the principles of merit-based appointment and judicial political neutrality were preserved.

However, he said that the confirmation hearings of the deputies risked drawing the judges into discussions on political questions.

"It is in the nature of the beast. They will not ask me" Do I like cats? "or" How do I like spending the weekend? "What interests politicians is politics," he said.

"It is based on a misunderstanding of what we do. We are lawyers.

"I can't deny that our personalities play a role – that would be unrealistic. But we sometimes agonize over trying to get the right legal answer."

The vice-president of the court, Lord Hodge, said that the confirmation hearings could lead some judges to believe that they had a "mandate" to bring their political opinions into the judicial decision-making.

"Most, if not all, judges will have personal opinions and private political opinions, but it is very clear to us that we have no democratic mandate to integrate these opinions into our work," he said. he declares.

"It is an intrinsic part of the judicial culture that we leave our personal opinions at the door of the court.

"I fear that if we came down with something that seemed to be political confirmation and involved asking questions about our personal and political opinions, then we would risk having judges who feel they have received a warrant to bring their opinions and politicians in the courtroom when they are currently excluded. "

He added: "There is a great danger that you will damage an institution which has an international reputation if you follow this path."