The court's having the final say is not yet a completely accepted position in Britain: "A decision of a judicial body should be final and binding and should not be capable of being overturned by a member of the executive," Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, explained in the decision.
As explained by Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, it is that "a decision of a judicial body should be final and binding and should not be capable of being overturned by a member of the executive" – in this case, the attorney general.
The Court's majority judgment states it is a fundamental principle that "a decision of a judicial body should be final and binding and should not be capable of being overturned by a member of the executive".
Lord Neuberger concluded that Section 53 does not permit the attorney general to override a decision of a judicial tribunal or court by issuing a certificate "merely because he, a member of the executive, considering the same facts and arguments, takes a different view from that taken by the tribunal or court".
"The club is giving careful consideration to the decision of the judicial panel and hope that it can achieve a change of circumstances which will address the panel's concerns". Livingston were also found guilty of "providing false, misleading and/or inaccurate information in respect of Neil Rankine's eligibility as a fit and proper person" by not disclosing his interest in East Fife.
§ 1800.45 Notification of decision and right of judicial review.
But, he said, after the "overreaching" by the Supreme Court decision, "any form of judicial micromanagement is possible".
Calling the Miranda decision a "milestone of judicial overreaching", Scalia stated that the Court should not fear to correct its mistakes.
By Joseph P. Pollard The New Yorker, December 1 , 1928P. 109 Strange cases of judicial decisions.
Law books are littered with the discredited decisions of false judicial modesty.
