The first few hearings for the new Supreme Court will be secret: not because it is a secretive organisation, but because the first cases involve spies and terrorists. How fitting that security and secrecy are the qualities which will exercise the minds of our supposedly finest jurists.
But, despite the ironic positioning of these first few cases, the content lends itself to the wider struggle that faces liberal democracy: battling increasingly dangerous threats without undermining the thin thread of consent upon which their legitimacy is based. This is a challenge that New Labour and the Bush Presidency failed to rise up to, and one that Obama has not tackled beyond symbolic sops to his base.
Thus, our judges deem their role to be the preservation of principle as they see it, even when the consequences are mad and perverse. New thinking beyond the mad constraints of the Human Rights Act is required to enhance liberty and secure freedom, safe from the madness of the self-righteous.
But, despite the ironic positioning of these first few cases, the content lends itself to the wider struggle that faces liberal democracy: battling increasingly dangerous threats without undermining the thin thread of consent upon which their legitimacy is based. This is a challenge that New Labour and the Bush Presidency failed to rise up to, and one that Obama has not tackled beyond symbolic sops to his base.
Thus, our judges deem their role to be the preservation of principle as they see it, even when the consequences are mad and perverse. New thinking beyond the mad constraints of the Human Rights Act is required to enhance liberty and secure freedom, safe from the madness of the self-righteous.