The comparison between the U.S., a nation with a written constitution and a vigorous judiciary, and Great Britain, a nation with a relatively weak judiciary and without a written constitution, is an interesting one. I mostly use the comparison to undermine the assumption that judicial review is necessary to safeguard civil liberties: If the Constitution and judicial review are necessary to protect civil liberties, how has Great Britain managed to get along so well? And if it doesn't protect civil liberties, then what's it good for? Despite these arguments, it looks like Britain is moving more towards our version of judical review. It recently accepted the European Convention of Human Rights, which gives British judges powers very much like judicial review. And some, like the Economist, apparently think its a good idea.

But for those, like this newspaper, who think that the British constitution (or lack of it) endows the executive with too much power, this new judicial activism is a welcome development. Britain's judiciary is a pale shadow of that in countries with written constitutions, such as America, where the Supreme Court constantly scrutinises the actions of the executive and the legislature in the light of the constitution.

- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:14 PM