วีดีโอ

Yes, they sat as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Sadly, perhaps, most commonwealth countries have chosen to establish their own Final Courts of Appeal and no longer send cases to the Privy Council. Instead, a member of the Supreme Court of England and Wales is invited to sit on the bench in important cases in, for example, NZ, Oz or HK. From memory, it's only the small Commonwealth countries who still retain appeal to the PC, eg Jamaica.

@@JupiterThunder No doubt you are a yank. UK does not link political beliefs to our Judges - our Judges are politically un-biased - do your homework and stop posting tripe. In the USA - the rulings of judges have little regard because they have already allied themselves to one of the two parties. It is truly a flawed judicial system. Cast your eye across the pond America - and learn how to do it properly.

@@JupiterThunder An indigenous Brit? That sounds painful, I am sure you can get a cream for that. Recent Supreme Court judgement in the proroging of Parliament, in the country, demonstrates the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court is made up of the highest intellectually qualified lawyers: they succeed as barristers, become QCs and then work their way through the court system to arrive at the Supreme Court. They do not get there by pulling votes from punters. They are appointed by virtue of their excellence as barristers and lawyers. Lord Justice Hale came to the supreme Court by way of academia. Please tell us what the structural change Tony Blair introduced to render the justice system in adequate? In point of fact I’ve just bought Tony Blair‘s biography. I consider him to be one of the greatest prime minister’s this country has ever had.

@@JupiterThunder Utter rubbish. The UK judiciary is free of political bias. They are chosen for their intellectual progress and understanding, judgement, and learning of the law. No politics here at all. Blairite what a joke

@Where's Walshy what a knob

word

@Where's Walshy No one gives a stuff - jog on Jim

Well the house arrest was self-imposed. You couldn't say that a introverted recluse convicted of a crime needn't serve a prison term because they spent the previous 10 years sitting at home. Regardless of his guilt or innocence

The very same.

You're a lying cunt, as a supreme court justice or any judge for that matter can issue orders on legal matters that have never been presented in court. She did however publicly make comments regarding women and how they are treated in the U.K courts. It is well known that crimes committed by women are often downgraded or changed by the courts, as women are almost always likely to be mothers of children and the sole caregiver, it is not in the nature of a court to send sole caregivers to jail. Unless the judge decides it. Otherwise it will likely cause the destruction of the family life, creating more legal issues like rehousing for the children/dependencies etc. Also in cases involving custody of children , women are more likely to be given charge over men. Please stop spreading misinformation online, you only expose yourself as a liar.

Knappa22 UK Supreme Court justices must be impartial and have no political affiliation.

Just a matter of time. I believe you now have a much stronger public identification of judges as Remain or Leave than even as party affiliated ... after the "Prorogation Decision"? Next stop - very public review of appointments ... I'd say very soon.

@@majesticprimate wrong - UK judges remain impartial always - they are not political appointees

@@Mikados_Advark12 Yes I've seen how innocent they are, especially the Spider Lady. At least as activist as Ginsberg, if not more.

@@majesticprimate 3 years later and it hasn't happened. The British judges even stopped the government progaging (suspending) parliament and ruled their actions "unlawfull". Our judges remain unbiased and above politics, their political feelings remain their own. On the other hand currently in the USA judges are making rulings that have no legal standing and are purely political in nature. Justice Clarence Thomas is even able to make rulings on cases which have deep implications for his wife.

الذي ارتقى هي أمريكا وفرنسا مع الأسف. هذا الرجل الفذ لم يعط الفرصة في الجزائر

Steve DL She could of been born in Richmond Surrey her voice sounds more like that area, I,m only speculating.

Sorry I got it wrong your right the Baroness is from North Yorkshire.

I doubt you have viewed, or at best understood the video. I would suggest you read up how to use ampersands (& marks) but frankly, you haven't even grasped capital letters yet so there's no point really.

she a lizard

+kelty lillquist Are you always this shallow, so personally disrespectful. Why don't you post a video of you speaking? I'm sure folk of a similar disposition will draw attention to something in you which might be the subject of low criticism.

get over it. we don't like hale, she's a horrid person, and a corrupted bureaucrat. people are disgusted by these 'intellectual' types, they have never really had to work in their lives - that's why people voted brexit and trumph! the law is not accessible. If i tell you "direct me to all law on murder", you wouldn't be able to. and it's because people like her r not doing their jobs properly.

Her contribution to the law has been... yes, just that. Nothing.The law is inaccessible and it's because of these bureaucrats. The law is still inaccessible, and it's because people like her, in these positions, do not work. They don't represent the views of decent people, and they do not work for them.

George Rothschild She’s simply a Supreme Court justice with no political affiliation. She can’t make any new laws. She can’t change things significantly that aren’t appealed. Hale is brilliant, she’s lived a normal life compared to other UK Justices - she went to a state school, got a scholarship to pay for her tuition, etc. - she’s just a normal person who only is able to interpret laws which are appealed (case appeals).

+Arrun Harker Worst type of person why? For decrying the nobility? Or because she advocates a different political system than yourself?

+Stephen Tymcio Titles may be an archaic relic but they are our history and no longer symbolise what they once did in terms of repressive democracy. And what I think Arrun Harker meant; my guess is that he also finds it incredibly distasteful when the average American attempts to prop up their democracy as the 'bee's knees' when in reality, their representatives are the most deluded individuals that effectively bought their seats.

1)there is no real political movement in Canada for a republic- I'm speaking as a Canadian.

The US is an elective Monarchy, only they are sneaky about it. All this nonsense about a "Republic" is meaningless: the US President is infinitely more despotic and open to corrupt SUPERPAC abuse, vested interests (or at least has the potential to be) than any Constitutional Monarchy, anywhere.

+Nick Humphrey Why? It seems like Justice Ginsburg is confused as to how there could be a court where judges aren't able to write the law. Small wonder

Yes, but at times she does appear somewhat scatty...