The UK Supreme Court came into being through the Blair government's reforms of the House of Lords. Before then, the Law Lords sat in the upper house to give a final say on legal issues, after they were a separate institution, split off from the legislature.
This made the court system closer to the US model, where the Supreme Court forms part of the separation of powers between a bicameral house, elected president, state powers and the court. But ... obviously without the intense partisan element that we see there, most recently with the Trumpian packing of the court with 3 new conservative judges (or justices) despite having blocked Obama from appointing one a year before his second term ended.
Then again ... despite the right-wing press fury at the UK Supreme Court blocking Johnson's attempt to prorogue Parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit without a vote, the legal system is notoriously narrow in its demographics. The legal system is not representative of the ethnic or social class mix of the UK.
In November 2020, the Tory government launched proposals to reform the Supreme Court - to effectively scrap it. This would start with a renaming, plus making it multiple themed courts, all reducing its status. Labour critics argue this is a direct reaction to Conservative fury (at least on the Brexiteer side - former Tory Attorney General Dominic Grieve led parliamentary efforts to resist Johnson's attempt, and lost the whip) at the Court's decision on prorogation.
Whether those critics are right or not about the motivation, such a move would reduce the status of the Court at a time when it and the Speakership have emerged as key counterbalances to the executive, with the legislature struggling to fulfil its constitutional role of holding the executive to account.
Are unelected judges any better or more democratic than unelected peers? That is another way to look at the Court.
Here's a
Nov 2020 article from the Guardian on those government reform plans. The bias is evident in the prominence given to the Labour critics rather than the Tory government; I'd equally expect the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg to be more prominently featured in a right-wing paper's coverage. This appears to be what The Telegraph (source of The Guardian's report) did (it's behind a paywall) - here's the start of the Guardian article:
Government-backed plans to reduce the size of the supreme court and rename it have been condemned by Labour as an assault on the independence of the judiciary.
The proposals, said to be under ministerial discussion, are supposedly aimed at curtailing the court’s ability to become involved in constitutional issues such as last year’s parliamentary prorogation case, which ended in a resounding defeat for Boris Johnson.
The report in the Sunday Telegraph said Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the Commons, had privately accused the court of a “constitutional coup” after the justices unanimously ruled that the government’s attempt to prorogue parliament to prevent it debating Brexit was illegal.
...
The proposals resemble a policy paper published by the thinktank Policy Exchange in July entitled Reforming the Supreme Court. That also suggested replacing the supreme court with an “upper court of appeal” and having specially selected panels for separate cases.
...
The press showed the usual split on the prorogue ruling; the Mail took things quite far (see Gdn analysis + Wiki)
JUNE 2021 - MPs/PEERS TAKE PM TO COURT OVER RUSSIA EKECTION INTERFERENCE REPORT
WOW!!! MPs and peers are taking the PM to court over his treatment of a report into Russian links. The Trump parallels grow stronger.
Evening Standard
DEC 2020
JOHNSON TAKES REVENGE ON SUPREME COURT, REMOVES ITS POWER TO BLOCK PROROGATION. UNCODIFIED CONSTITUTION...
The most controversial change is an attempt to bar the courts from ruling on the powers of the government to dissolve parliament. The move will be seen as a direct retaliation against the supreme court, which humiliated Johnson last year after it ruled that his prorogation of parliament at a key point in the Brexit talks was unlawful.
The Cabinet Office confirmed the legislation would “reaffirm the longstanding position that the prerogative powers are not reviewable by courts, providing legal clarity”.
Dr Jessica Garland, director of policy and research at the Electoral Reform Society said the government should be making efforts to decentralise power, rather than reclaim it. “The UK already has one of the most centralised political systems amongst modern democracies so any plans to give our already dominant executive more powers should be carefully scrutinised and treated with caution,” she said.
“Any reforms to our politics should be made with the view of moving powers away from the centre, which already has significant control over the Commons and the Lords, which the Prime Minister can pack with appointees at will.
