The obsession with “judicial activism” was born in the United States and manifested in right-wing campaigns against the abortion rights gained as a result of Roe v Wade. Generally speaking, judicial activism is what happens when a court rules against what you want to happen. It’s the same bleat as you hear from hardened cons saying the judge had it in for them. It’s a peculiar concept that has particular force in the United States because their Constitution makes the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of decisions taken by the legislature or executive. This is not true in the UK where Parliament is sovereign. It’s, I’m afraid, representative of the kind of US-obsessed nonsense we see too much of, for example, in the ‘alt right’ narrative of betrayal. We’re not America, and given what they’re going through right now in their Presidential election, we should be grateful for that.
Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/angela-eagle/article-50-high-court_b_12786736.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics