Shame on the Brits!

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. The Confucian dimension (notice I didn’t say ‘Burkean’) of my worldview (which, admittedly, is an inconsistent hodgepodge) finds me in absolutely agreement with you on this one (I was not in favor of the new Supreme Court either, nor many of the changes to the House of Lords for that matter). The English appear to be losing their collective self-confidence as well as a deep appreciation of the function and value of several long-standing traditions. Traditions should indeed be subject to critical examination and creative adaptation but I find it hard to understand the compelling warrant or rationale behind these and other recent changes.

  2. Tuan Samahon says:

    This is an interesting change for another reason. C.J. John Marshall adopted subtle changes that consolidated the still relatively new U.S. Supreme Court’s authority, e.g. rejecting seriatim opinions for a definitive opinion of the Court that would speak authoritatively and support the pretense of judicial supremacy. Does that mean, then, that ditching wigs and such is perceived by the U.K. Supreme Court justices as promoting its legitimacy? I was initially inclined to think that losing traditions might diminish the authority previously wielded as law lords. Perhaps the justices’ judgment is that it is better to be up-to-date and thereby be better able to connect with a population — a constituency ? — that can’t relate to the stuffy traditions that OxBridge-types relish?