Reader TTS

Among the many standout episodes of the West Wing, a favourite programme of political geeks around the world, is one entitled ‘The Supremes’. Fictional President Jed Bartlett ends up with

the opportunity to appoint someone to the Supreme Court, but thanks to opposition from Congress, can’t get his choice in. After some political manoeuvring, a right-wing judge ends up on the

court, alongside of a more Democrat friendly judge as Chief Justice. The episode ends with the two having an impassioned, respectful debate backstage before their appointments are announced,

and staffers beaming with pride that they’ve got the court working as it should. The episode highlights perfectly the highly politicised nature of the courts in America. But that’s where

the comparisons with reality end. The West Wing is a fictional, idealised, version of politics. In reality, appointments to courts by politicians become highly polarised and fractious. Just

ask Dr Christine Blasey Ford, who accused now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of serious sexual offences. Politicians were happy to look past the serious accusations she made to get

their man on the court. Thankfully, at the moment, the British legal system is not politicised in the same way. Judges are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is made up

of a mixture of lay people and legal professionals. MPs do not approve the appointments of judges, and that is generally a good thing. To have politicians decide who sits on the highest

court in the land would cause huge issues. For a start, you would end up risking having judges who tried to appeal to voters rather than follow their legal philosophy and precedent when

interpreting the law. Worryingly, on the back of the Prorogation decision last week, it looks like the sands might be shifting: there are rumblings about Parliament having oversight of

Supreme Court Judges. When Parliament returned last Wednesday, John Stevenson, the Conservative MP for Carlisle, asked Attorney General Geoffrey Cox: “Given that Parliament is at the apex of

our constitutional system, does the Attorney General believe that the appointment of Supreme Court judges should receive the formal approval of Parliament?” Cox, for his part, was not sure.

He said he understood why the question was being asked and added “that I think it is a matter which this House may need to reflect upon in the coming months and years, depending on the

status of our constitutional arrangements…”  He revealed that while has not been “enthusiastic” about such moves, “there may very well need to be parliamentary scrutiny of judicial

appointments in some manner.” Boris Johnson went even further on the Andrew Mar Show on Sunday. The Prime Minister said that “if judges are to pronounce on political questions in this way,

then there is at least an argument that there should be some form of accountability.” If that sounds like a threat, it is meant to. While I largely agree with the campaigner Gina Miller’s

opposition to Brexit, I confess that I have, at points, felt somewhat uncomfortable at the use of the courts by her and other campaigners to pursue political issues. But there is a

legitimate argument that all Ms Miller has done in both her legal cases is simply to demand that Parliament works properly and has the ability to hold the Government to account. As citizens,

we must have the right to use the courts to hold those in power accountable and make sure institutions do their job. Boris Johnson’s sentiments of accountability, all sound democratic, but

actually hasten the descent into populism. By behaving in this provocative manner towards an independent judiciary, this government is only demonstrating further why politicians should have

no right to appoint judges.