• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What are the differences between the Judiciary in the UK and the US?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What are the differences between the Judiciary in the UK and the US? One of differences between the judiciaries is the branch of government responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law. In the United States the judiciary is known as the Supreme Court and in the UK it is known as the Judiciary. This essay attempts to highlight the differences in both of the judiciaries. One of the key differences in the judiciaries of the US and the UK is that the Supreme court is seen as more of a political body, with courts being described as either conservative or liberal. ...read more.

Middle

The nomination process tends to be rather political as many presidents tent to appoint their political allies to gain a political advantage, such as Nixon whom tried to change the direction of the SC to make them appear more conservative. In addition, many judges tend to be politicians prior to becoming judges. The senate also reject judges based on political grounds, such as Robert Bork who was seen as extremely conservative. By contrast, Judges are chosen based on merit by the Judicial Appointment Commission, based on merit. Many perceive the Supreme court as the more powerful as the two judiciaries through its checks and balances of the other two branches. ...read more.

Conclusion

However, it relies on the other two branches supporting and enforcing its decisions. For example, it took 20 years to enforce Brown vs. Board. By contrast, judicial review in the UK cannot undermine parliamentary sovereignty. If the judiciary decides the government has acted beyond its powers, a government can change the law accordingly allowing it to do the same thing in the future. In other words, although the judiciary in the UK makes the government more accountable for its actions, it doesn't infringe parliamentary supremacy. However, since the Since the Human Rights Act (1998) came into force judges have been unafraid to declare government policy incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in relation to terrorism. In 2004 the Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention without trial for terrorist suspects breached the Human Rights Act. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Peer reviewed

    Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?

    4 star(s)

    However she did not complete the nomination process due to a number of conservative and liberal critics. Supreme Court justices are apolitical in the fact that they also have a lack of enforcement and have to wait for the executive branch to help enforce their decisions.

  2. Federalism essay

    of federalism, broken only by the National Socialist unitary state of 1933-45. Germany has realized that it is much easier for a country with a federal structure than a centralized state to take account of regional characteristics and problems. A federal structure is good for countries with regional diversities, as Germany and the US have, as it promotes regional culture.

  1. Outline the differences between the electoral systems for the US Presidency, the US Senate ...

    completely clear the house and was again designed to keep it more stable. They were seen by the framers as a more 'aristocratic branch'14 of the congress and were there to ensure that the will of the people was being acted upon.

  2. Youngstown Co. vs. Sawyer.

    In the first part, Justice Jackson rejects Solicitor's argument that, according to the constitution, all the executive power should be held by the president. He uses the intent of the framers to discard this idea, stating that framers certainly did not want president to become a despot and therefore introduced checks and balances on president's power.

  1. Critically analyse the appointment and confirmation process for nominees in the US Supreme Court

    judges after his 1936 election, to ensure that the court legitimised the New Deal programme, contrary to previous rulings which ruled that the NRA was unconstitutional as it did not have the right to impose rules of fair competition[4]. It appears that ?Presidents rightly cherish their opportunities to make nominations to the court.

  2. '9 politicians sitting on a bench.' Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme ...

    Much of the time, the candidate is rejected because of their judicial philosophy. Robert Bork was nominated to replace Lewis Powell in 1987, who was considered a swing justice, and was often the deciding vote[3]. Bork was considered one of the most outstanding legal scholars of his generation, and so

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work