Libertarian Party Home Affairs Spokesman, Dan Liddicott, has called into question the impartiality of the Supreme Court and said Justices and future nominees cannot now avoid full scrutiny to ensure a balanced Court.
Responding to the unanimous ruling against the Government, nullifying their prorogation of Parliament, Dan Liddicott said:
“Now the UK Supreme Court has begun ruling on political issues, and directing the Government, they can no longer avoid accusations of judicial activism or hide behind ‘separation of powers’. People up and down the country are now asking whether they just violated that separation.”
Dan Liddicott questioned the impartiality of the Court in light of the unanimous ruling:
“Commentators on the Remain side have been taking the unanimity of the decision as some indication of its rightness, but I don’t. Dissenting judgements would have indicated balance and independence of mind between Justices, that it was so one sided means they can’t avoid questions about bias,” he said.
“Since the Supreme Court’s creation under Tony Blair there has been a tendency to assume impartiality and an aloofness from the rough and tumble of politics but this week’s events mean that is a myth and is not something we can take for granted.”
To help address the constitutional crisis the Libertarian Party have proposed a new written constitution for Britain as part of their manifesto:
“The Libertarian Party proposes a different approach in its new written constitution for Britain, and being in favour of Brexit would strip the Court of its EU granted powers in any case when we leave the EU. But while the Supreme Court exists in its current form we will need to give much closer public scrutiny to current Justices and future nominees before they are appointed.”
When asked whether US style confirmation hearings are the right approach for the UK, Dan Liddicott responded:
“If the Supreme Court is to have the confidence of anyone I don’t see how we can avoid holding confirmation hearings. The decision the Supreme Court just handed down means the political leanings of Justices are now fundamental to whether they can be regarded as impartial. We need to see that the make-up of the Court is balanced in its political leanings.
“Future Supreme Court Justice candidates will need to be asked every question about political affiliations and biases and the final appointment should be ratified by Parliament or the people.
“From now on Justices can no longer claim their political views are no-one’s business. They made it our business when they took the decision to hand down a ruling this week.”