Originally posted on ScribblingsfromSeaham:
According to this report it would appear that a senior judge who will be sitting as a member of the Supreme Court may have compromised her impartiality.
Lady Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, queried whether a “simple Act of Parliament” would be enough to give Theresa May the authority to kick-start the two year countdown to the UK leaving the European Union. Instead, she argued that the Government may have to come up with a “comprehensive replacement” for the 1972 European Communities Act, which authorised Britain’s membership of the then European Economic Community. She also stated: What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our court, so I must say no more.
The question may well be: P’haps, M’Lady, you have said more than you should anyway – even allowing for the fact it is well known that those born in Yorkshire tend to be a tad outspoken? Is it not a case that her views should be reserved for the ‘judgement’, having heard all the legal argument – and not aired prior?
This situation illustrates that perhaps where those that are to rule on decisions made by the people, they should be elected by the people – rather than being, at the end of the day, a political appointment? In any event is not the judiciary supposed to be separated from government and thus be impartial?