Report comment

There seems to be no doubt that our senior judges are increasingly, and unconstitutionally, arrogating to themselves a party-political role. John Hyde implies the same thing, though with apparent approval, in his associated opinion piece: "Meddling ministers: stop annoying [sic] judges". Who are the judges, one might ask, that they may not be "annoyed"? And is annoyance a satisfactory basis anyway for exercising judicial control? The fundamental question is not whether the government's policy on this or any other justice-related issue is sound or unsound (in the present case it's probably unsound) but whether the courts or the electorate are the proper adjudicators.