Why should a previous government’s commitment to the international community trump (in practice if not in legal theory) a later government’s commitments to the British people?
There is a deep tension between a democratic constitution and efforts to insulate rights from changes in public opinion.
Biden and the Democrats face strong headwinds: low enthusiasm amongst young voters, and dire economic news.
The Government’s plan may mean a change from the Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – widening the set of judges who sit.
In a very 2020 twist, the President has Covid-19. With just a month until the vote, does he have time to fight it off – or the GOP to replace him?
But David Enrich’s new book does include a lot about how Deutsche Bank lent the President the money needed to look successful.
Remainer lawfare and Brexiteer backlash expose the judiciary to public and press scrutiny in unprecedented and possibly dangerous ways.
Each side in the Brexit debate regards its position as the only one a sane person could take, while the other side’s arguments are madly exaggerated and provocative.
Lady Hale offers ministers a double-edged sword when she suggests that they play a role in senior appointments to the bench.
Ulster citizens deserve the same marriage rights as their fellow Britons. But a recent bid to secure them through the courts was wrong.
It’s hard to see how hearings in front of MPs and peers would address the issues raised by those concerned about judicial activism.
There is plenty to dislike about the US system, but we’d do well to learn from it – if only to avoid travelling a similar road.
It’s easy, even comforting, to stick a simple narrative onto the election result. But it would be a mistake.
Like any tool, civil rights law and be used for good or ill. Parts of the left are committed to wielding it as a sword; conservative should be prepared, as Kemi Badenoch said of the UK’s Equality Act, to use it as a shield.