I was invited to lunch with the Supreme Court Justices a couple of weeks ago and to have a quick tour of the newly renovated building.
Bearing in mind that the Supreme Court – now a year old – is the venue for learned discussions on points of law rather that trials by jury, the renovation is very much in keeping with its main function. Originally the Middlesex Guildhall and built between 1906 and 1913 , it has big open spaces (now enhanced with lots of glass panelling), sober wood-clad offices and dining room, modern courtrooms and wonderful carpets designed by Sir Peter Blake who also designed the celebrated record sleeves for the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967.
Well worth a visit to see a successful combination of Beatlery and the law!
I`ll bear that in mind when my sister has her disability benefit stopped again whilst they re-decide it, when my next customer decides, there`s been a few already, that the website has to go because of the recession. When my self employed friends, like the one today, tell me they only have two days work booked for the next month.
When an extra 2.5% goes on VAT but those on benefits don`t get a raise. When %5 is added to food bills because of the 2.5% VAT which is added to all costs along the way.
I`ll bear that in mind the next time I hear of a despot regime building a lavish palace on the backs of the people.
“Let them eat cake”.
Taxpayers have paid nearly £50,000 for the design of not one but two emblems for the institution, a freedom of information request has revealed.
The Ministry of Justice declined to reveal the amount paid to Sir Peter Blake for designing the court’s carpet, which features repeated images of the motif, citing commercial confidentiality. The cost of laying the carpet was included in the £36.7m capital construction fee paid to Kier Group for the overall renovation.
The total set-up costs came to £58.9m.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/supreme-court-emblems-cost-taxpayer-50k
Yes, Carl.H; I too am voluntarily-unpaid (and ‘un-trained’) advocating and caring for an older woman (‘oops’ I nearly said ‘lady’) who is being charged more than ten times as much for her utility than she is actually using, and expensive correspondence with Parliamentary level has produced no just result nor even an individually ‘fair’ charge;
and the Citizens Advice Bureau eventually wrote her a long letter saying that (‘) over ten times more than she is actually using is a “reasonable amount to be expected to pay”.
I reason that such a Legislated System (possibly even constituted too ?) is not only demeaning and intimidating to the citizen but is quite super-corruptive of the ‘Private’-sector. Parliaments, Judiciary, Civil-Service, Establishment, and complicit-Community-sector agencies, churches, centres, and educational-establishments themselves.
———-
Thus I just submitted a comment to this topic “Lunch at the Supreme Court” reasoning that the Judiciary which is essentially ‘win-lose’ was rightly separated from the Parliaments if only to better- enable the Latter to progress Democracy into a Win-Win-Win new era.
But that post has already been removed I see.
==============
(JSDM 0610M26July2010)
I believe there are two little realised solid reasons for moving the Justice Lords to a quite separate building, quite apart from questions of seating room and other space, and of course their need for more appropriate architecture and decor, and modern-history tid-bits such as a link with the ‘Beatles’ (akin in sound and looks to ‘Beadles’ perhaps ?).
Firstly, there may be arising a need for the courtroom “win-lose” mind to be kept more physically separate from the frail-democratic essential of “win-win-win” governance (see “Friendly Method III win-win-win participatorily- cooperative problem-solving: special read-out below);
and secondly in a similar vein to have a separation of the judiciary “discontinuous mind” from the life-on-the-ground “continuous mind” (see Prof Richard Dawkins’s response to a question from lawyers attending his lecture on Evolution, differentiating the Evolutionary thinking-mind from the ‘black or white”guilty or not-guilty’, ‘which precise straw broke the camel’s back’ and ‘at which precise moment in historical-time did we humans cease to be interbreedable with our red-chimpanzee ancestors ?’).
Method III Democracy needs to establish and increasingly propagate win-win-win methodology:
(“)
Five Step Method III, for Friendly ‘Win-Win-Win’ Cooperative Problem-Solving and for Needs & Hows Recognition.
Introduction: Read through every part of the following lines before attempting to judge or even to think about this methodology: you will see why the guidelines are of primary and ‘deal-breaking’ necessity – the method is both voluntary and participatorily cooperative, win-win-win not like the alternative authoritarian legal-processes which are directive, competitive and win-lose.
Guidance #1 (Rule): No-one comes with any competitive advantage: each comes ’empty-handed’.
Each participates equally, with patience, non-competitively, non-invasively, non-leadingly, non-pushily, non-manipulatively.
There will be many ’rounds’, allowing every-one equal time and whiteboard-space.
Each step needs to have advocacy rounds, representing those not present in the meeting.
The penultimate round should probably be preset to be the ‘final revision’ round allowing questions and suggestions for improvement or better clarity and for confirmation, before moving on to the next step, and ultimately to the closing of the meeting.
Guidance #2: Move from person to person in one direction around the table or circle. Each person gets equal non-transferrable time.
Remember that for the first few meetings every-one will be learning, and many patient rounds will yield better results than a few grasshopper jump-arounds or fast ‘pedagogic’ sweeps.
Guidance#3: Silence is golden.
Since each individual may be needing to delve deep inside their own self, to find their own most real and important need and to formulate that into words, there needs to be a whole lot of silences.
Guidance #4: At each step keep going round a second, third, fourth or fifth time, until each participant is satisfied with their own finding so far and with the way they have worded it.
Guidance #5: Remember: NO interrupting, interpreting, nor altering; NO competing.
Let each finish verbatimly at first.
Have the advocacy rounds.
And have one or two penultimate rounds allowing for clarification or improvement-suggestion before making the final necessarily unanimous confirmation of the findings and of the way they have been written-up on the whiteboard and in the publishable-record.
Begin the five sequential Steps of Method III :
Practical sequence of a Method III meeting:
Step 1 : Each participant submits wording or amendment to describe the Problem-Situation at first needing to be written up on a whiteboard or butcher’s-paper, and agreed by each participant before moving on. Keep going around until what your scribe has written up on the whiteboard is perfectly approved by each participant.
Step 2: Each participant suggests a solution they imagine might meet every-one’s need in the above-written situation. Once again no interrupting, no paraphrasing, no ‘improving’ the speaker’s wording.
Step 3: Go round and round, evaluating each ‘imagined’ solution; e.g. by a show of left-hand = 1 point, right-hand = 2 points, both hands = 3 points, no hands = 0 points.
Step 4: Select one of these shortlisted solutions; OR cobble-together an eclectic-solution made up of the best features from any of the solutions submitted in Step 2.
Step 5: Go round and round again, this time constructing firstly a Plan A, that will best honour and ‘win-win-win’ meet each participant’s (and absentee’s) most-important real-need. That settled, go round and round again constructing a Plan B, for what to do, for whatever could go wrong in Plan A ‘from the inside’, or might sabotage it ‘from the outside’.
Further back-up (contingency) plans could be decided upon at the end of this step.
[ Step 6 would be the organisation, administration and actual execution on-the-ground, in every-one’s real-world, of your plans,
i.e. the coordination of equipment and other practicalities needed on-the-ground, among-the-grass-roots, by and for each real-life as a component-part of your collective-plans ].
Method III Win-Win-Win Democracy: We believe it is well within our People-level abilities and existing powers to improve our Governance systems by Instituting Method III Problem Solving in or as a local voluntary Association.
Neighbours and wider-spread citizens would meet to go through the Friendly Five Steps of Method III, and then convert those Agreements into Citizens’ Petitions to Parliament, or to the Local Council, or to other Authority concerned in recognising and helping to meet peoples’ newly-agreed Needs, Hows, and Affordable-Costs. (“)
============
A separation of the two equally vital but conflicting mind-sets and methodologies would make good historical sense as Democracy tries to advance in keeping with increased Generative science theories as distinct from the older (but strongly traditional and still-necessary) Descriptive theories.
(see ISBN 978-0-9740155-8-3).
========
(JSDM2233Sn25July2010).
Carl H, The Middlesex Guildhall wasn’t being used prior to these changes and we are now using a fine building for a good purpose. The re-use of this building was chosen in preference to a more expensive new build. There is such a thing as public money being well spent on good quality building; it enriches all of us.
My Lady, with apologies for any offence. The need for Sir Peter Blake to design carpets and the emblems at great cost was totally unnecessary.
The Lords in luxury whilst people suffer ? Public money well spent ? Art over the NHS for instance !
My Lady perhaps my priorities are a little different to those of a Princess who thinks if they haven`t bread they must have brioche, totally oblivious to the plight of the people.
£82 million on a referendum, £59 million on the Guildhall but don`t panic we`ll save £180 million on the Health Protection Agency and others.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10762043
“It enriches all of us.”
No, my Lady it doesn`t !
“The need for Sir Peter Blake to design carpets and the emblems at great cost was totally unnecessary.”
Let’s do away with art altogether, pull down the works of art in the corridors of the Palace of Westminster, have bare walls,only official notices on them, and blank white walls.
Functionalism gone mad! Just an office block
perhaps, with cheap and cheerful vinyl for the pleasure of those attending?
Gareth, it`s a question of priority and perspective.
All this was done when the Country was deep in debt and the Government knew so. Now I know from previous posts of yours you do not believe that people should be allowed to walk away from their debts. The same applies to Nations, lest the system we run turns to anarchy.
If you were deep in debt would you allow your wife to commission a designer carpet for your home ? Knowing that your children would suffer to pay the debt and the cost of the carpet ? To me such would be irresponsible.
The debt this Country is in means that real people will suffer, they will hurt and go without. To you this may not mean much, I have seen single parents begging to borrow money to put some electric on their card (for which in most cases they pay more for), for food or their childrens school uniform.
The VAT rise that is coming will affect the poor a great deal more than the rich and yet we know the rich had a great deal more from the system before these cuts.
My perspective is that people matter more than art, to some that may seem alien, to me it is a way of life.
The little people in this country, the poor, will never benefit from the art and carpet yet do pay toward it. They will also pay a price for our great debt, higher than those who do benefit from it. If you can justify that in your own conscience that`s fine, I can`t and I would rather lose face, and perhaps friends here than let them suffer without a word.
The art and carpet is worthless without being able to educate a child to appreciate it or keeping someone alive to see it. Am I wrong to put people first ?
It`s no use I`m incensed about this now and I have to come back to it.
“I was invited to lunch with the Supreme Court Justices a couple of weeks ago and to have a quick tour of the newly renovated building.”
And someone else was putting buckets under a leaky school roof whose funds for repairs have been denied. Someone else was dying because of the lottery of NHS treatment and much more.
I have just read that the increase in costs from Law Lords in Parliament to Supreme Court will be £11 million a year.
“Dominic Grieve, QC, the Shadow Justice Secretary, says: “We were against the creation of the Supreme Court. We think it will prove to be a very costly exercise with capital costs in excess of £100 million, adding in the cost of relocating the criminal courts from Middlesex Guildhall and PFI costs, with running costs rising from what was £3 million on the law lords to £14 million a year. So we believe it is not money well spent. That said, it is up and running and we wish it success.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6855084.ece
I`m all for letting the old folks have nice surroundings and some dignity but at that cost ? Whilst childrens education suffers ? People die ?
Don`t tell me the Labour party didn`t know we were deeply in debt when it was conceived !
Is it right that children suffer, people die and poverty still exists in our Nation whilst we pay Sir Peter Blake £x for designing a carpet and you know it will be a ludicrous sum.
Why is it that Parliamentarians can debate the poverty, the state of the NHS, the lack of funds for good schools and then still go and spend all OUR money on luxuries ?
It`s infuriating that they don`t see, can`t seem to grasp it, that their world is so far from the reality that most of us live.
Yes it`s a wonderful old building, with fantastic carpets and adornments. The 12 old blokes are only going to cost us £14 million A YEAR to stay there, I expect we pay for lunch too !
Labour were very good at spending our money on the frivolous, whilst the Country got deeper in debt. Now we are suffering and about to suffer more I expect.
The white elephants of labour are not to be gloated about, they were/are expensive mistakes no matter how wonderful the building. People will suffer because of them.
As a self employed person I have been questioned on the necessity of items I have for my business. Do you honestly think if I stated I needed designer carpets and emblems Her Majesty`s Government would say “Sure, you really need them to be comfortable and for your image” ?
It`s about time Government played by it`s own rules and sorted out the priorities. The building is not worth one life or one childs education.
£58.9 million would build how many Council Homes ? Repair how many schools ? Buy how many treatments ?
Send the Law Lords the appeal documents by pdf to their homes, let them have an internet conference, that`ll be £14 million a year we save.
Sorry but I am absolutely livid. The Government is about to send lots of people on disability back in to job seeking, mistakes will be made, people will suffer. Single mothers of 10 year olds forced back to job seeking when there are no jobs especially when the kid has to be dropped at school at 9 and home at 3. They can`t let a friend fetch the child because of CRB checks etc.
The jobless totals will rise dramatically because of this and everyone wil scream recession again. Everything will fall to pieces again but Governments will go on spending our money on sumptuous luxury and designer carpets for their own.
Stop spending our money and telling us how wonderful and grand life is for you. That the upkeep of the old folks home called Guildhall is £14 million on top of £59m setup but it is essential to their image. That really matters to the poverty stricken kid on a Liverpool street whose Grandad has cancer but his Health Authority won`t pay for the more expensive treatment, who can`t go to school tomorrrow cos the roof leaks.
You tell him the Guildhall enriches his life.
Rant over !
Carl H. a clearly heartfelt ‘rant’, in your terms, but with some important points – including the increase in running costs. That must be of graeter concern than the carpet.
However, the references to ‘old blokes’/’old folks home’ appear to ignore that in the new Supreme Court the Justices have to retire at 70 (see e.g. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2010-07-12a.506.1.)
Baroness Murphy states “The re-use of this building was chosen in preference to a more expensive new build.” The other option which she omits was to remain where it was which, as Carl points out, would have been considerably cheeper both in capital and running costs. The Justices should not be blamed – as Lord Norton pointed out in a response to an earlier post (http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/05/25/the-cap-of-maintenance/#comment-11577).
Lord Falconer stated in the House that the reason for the move was purely symbolic (col WS125, 14 June 2007). That symbolism will cost us – and those who pay the increased court fees – much more than the symbols on any carpet.
Carl H: many readers of and contributors to this blog didn’t agree with setting up the Supreme Court. That aside, why single out the Middlesex Guildhall for criticism? There are very many similar schemes in the public sector where the odd million pounds could be saved, but what then? A country with no institutions? No government and anarchy, yet world class health care and education? I don’t think so.
While the running costs of the new court compared to the former Law Lords can be seen as a waste, the money spent on the building represents good value as this is a one-off cost. Quality carpets are made to last.
Referring to the Justices of the Supreme Court as “old blokes” is a little juvenile. They actually have a statutory retirement age of 75, and these days most people are perfectly healthy and fit to work at that age. If the rest of the population followed the example of the Justices and worked until 75, the nation’s finances would be in a much better state.
Jonathon, I`m not going to justify all of my posts yesterday, it was a bad day but I hate waste.
I hate the way Governments think they have a right to spend my money anyway they choose. Good quality carpets do last as you say but do they need a fancy designer at what cost ? Were new emblems a necessity ?
We all have to manage on a budget.
If we go back a few centuries, Kings raised taxes from the people not only for armies, which at times was justifiable, but also for their own luxuries. Wonderful castles and I expect designer carpets. Was it worth it ? It depends which side of the fence you are on doesn`t it.
Government does not, in my opinion, take its role of accounts manager seriously. The frivolous spending of the last Government was ridiculous, massage rooms in the Educational Authority ? It isn`t their money and for every pound they spend frivolously someone somewhere goes without something, they seem to forget this.
Government contracts are like insurance jobs, they`re a chance for industries to overcharge and they do. We saw it with Labour, the amount of money lost on IT contracts that didn`t work, the escalating costs and schedules that fell way behind. Wouldn`t happen in the commercial world, if you`re late finishing a job which you promised on a schedule you`d have to pay a forfeit.
Government seems unable to grasp all this and the feeling is it`s because it`s not their money. It`s waste and it`s irresponsible. The worst part is that when that waste happens its glossed over, no one appears to care that £x could have gone into Council Housing or the NHS. No lessons appear to be learnt.
In these days of equality why should the old bloke next door be any different to the 12 ? I didn`t say they don`t do a good job or don`t deserve respect but I thought the days when I had to kneel or doth my cap were over. Are they old ? Yes. Are they blokes ? Yes. Am I being disrespectful in my description ? Not at all. I am an old bloke, it`s descriptive that`s all. At no point do I blame the Justices for anything.
As for being value for money that is a personal view. If the Lords had been reformed and cuts in numbers that will come were done, we should have had ample room for the Law Lords in Parliament. Which in my opinion is where they should be. The extra £11m costs per year would have been unnecessary.
The Guildhall could have been turned to commercial use for some return to the taxpayers. Good property in London is a fortune and being a listed building it would have stayed in keeping. We managed to sell off all the Council stocks and lots more besides. Oh but they`re little peoples houses, they don`t need a moat or a Guildhall.
Jonathon you`re being ridiculous suggesting that my intention was no institutions at all and you very well know that.
It seems my reference to “old blokes” has offended some, I apologise. I am working class, originally from Hackney and I mean no disrespect to them or you.
The Guildhall was/is an unnecessary luxury in my opinion. Am I allowed opinion ?
Suo jour Baroness D’Souza CMG PC.
So you were in the company of your privy fellows?
There are over 500 Privy Counsellors and there is no constitutional upper limit to the number serving the council during a Regents lifetime. They cannot however all attend at once but are summoned on an ad hoc basis by the executive. They are not allowed to sit but must stand to make progress on the day’s business when summoned.
Lets us assume that the House’s expertise was moved away from the HoL to a statutory body not dissimilar to the US ‘Congressional Research Service’. Each member of that service could be assigned privy councillor status as part of a diverse community representative of contemporary society.
The service would fulfil the needs of both Houses of Parliament and could exist on a similar basis to the existing expert Life Peerage role. Members could have normal employments and be summoned to attend the service when needed by the executive of either house.
This would leave the upper house essentially an elected political chamber. If the service was categorised a single Life Peer per expert category would be resident to act as third party between service expertise and the political process. The house would have its upper limit boundary set constitutionally.
Those peers moving to the service would loose their writ of summons but would keep their letters patent. The expert peers remaining in the house would be elected by electoral colleges and would need to be effective communicators both oral and written.
Ref: Rights and Privileges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty’s_Most_Honourable_Privy_Council
Carl H, I am also incensed. If we don’t value the quality of public buildings and spend money on improving them with the best quality contemporary art (eg special carpets) we shall be failing future generations. Would you prefer that Paris for example, a city of extraordinarily beautiful public buildings, should be replaced by portakabins? Much of London is ugly, developed cheaply and ready to be thrown away within ten years. We shoud spend more on good architecture and internal decoration, not less.
“Much of London is ugly, developed cheaply and ready to be thrown away within ten years. ”
Yes my Lady, the parts for the working classes. The tower blocks and estates, I`m sure the tenants appreciate the luxury of the Guildhall and benefit from it hugely.
“We shoud spend more on good architecture and internal decoration, not less.”
Should say
We shoud spend more OF YOUR MONEY on good architecture and internal decoration, not less, FOR US.
Not ‘Arf what will be saved in the fulness of time by the public having the right to know what politicians expenses are, one of the knock on effects of the separation of the two functions of state, previously controlled by the Lord Chancellor in the HofL.
Oh dear! Hornet’s nest comes to mind. Very probably it is insensitive to refer to designer carpets in this climate of cuts. I apologise.
I hate waste too and your comments are largely about priorities.However, I am not entirely convinced that a less remarkable and less expensive carpet would necessarily have been transformed into a much needed, and probably much deserved, public service.
There are age-old reasons for separating the judiciary from the legislature and accommodating the law lords in what was a disused building, now restored, is an important constitutional reform. The Supreme Court, whether in the UK or the USA, also needs to be perceived as somewhat distant from day to day life in order to enhance its authority.
There may come a time when some of you will be less unhappy when a ruling from the Supreme Court guarantees your liberties against the intrusions of government?
Pretty much correct Carl.
They enjoy spending your money and getting you into debt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462090/Cost-Supreme-Court-soars-past-100m.html
100 Million pounds, on offices for 12 judges.
Some one must have seen them coming.
Oh dear! Hornet’s nest comes to mind. Very probably it is insensitive to refer to designer carpets in this climate of cuts. I apologise.
============
Why? It’s what has got us into the mess. Are you saying it’s all OK if its kept a state secret like Lords expenses fiddles?
The consitutional reform doesn’t need an expensive building.
It doesn’t need to be distant either. That’s just an excuse for spending lots of other people’s money. It’s the same excuse that gets trotted out for the 2,000 pounds plus a day it takes to run one Lord. The same as someone on the breadline pays in tax in year.
There may come a time when some of you will be less unhappy when a ruling from the Supreme Court guarantees your liberties against the intrusions of government?
Again you’ve let the cat out of the bag. Isn’t that what the Lords are supposed to do for the cash they get paid? Protect us by revising bad legistlation.
If the Lords can’t do it and we have to rely on 12 supreme court judges most of whom haven’t a clue on what they are rulling on, such as digital rights, why are we paying you anything?
“Also needs to be perceived as somewhat distant”.
Perceived doesn`t necessarily mean they should be physically parted. The seperation of powers that still exists within the confines of Parliament shows that physically being apart is unnecessary. The legislation parted them not the different building.
I`m not sure a carpet conducts a public service and I wonder yet again with taxpayers money why there is little transparency. Did Sir Peter Blake knock off the VAT for cash ? (Not a serious question, I`m not suggesting this is the case). It`s only the type of question IR may throw at me. I personally doubt I could afford to put a piece on my wall let alone the floor.
The mere fact that my Lady and Baroness Murphy accept it as art rather than carpet puts it in a different realm to functionality. Should we expect to see Parliament put forward they are buying “Sunflowers” by Van Gogh for image purposes and it will perform a much deserved service ?
Surely the question of frivolity is the person`s who are paying the bill ?
I have more faith in the twelve old blokes it seems, I would dare to suggest that without the carpet and the building they`d still guarantee my liberties against an intrusive Government, as obstreperous and annoying as I may seem.
I have to agree with Carl H that the Supreme Justices could probably guarantee civil liberties in the absence of a carpet.
I disagree that these Judges don’t know the about the techical details of their judgements. They have to because their task is to monitor the application of the law and on this they are expert (Lord Blagger)
Let’s shed some light on this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
BDS is aware of this but perhaps it slipped her mind?
The UK Supreme Court is an Appellant Court or the court of last resort in the appeals process. However, it is not the highest court in the land as that role belongs to Parliament. It can raise Acts of Attainder against individuals or groups in the national interest. A leading banker was recently threatened obliquely by this class of Act so angry was the government at the time.
How can we have a beacon of justice called a ‘Supreme Court’ when Parliament can punish without trial anybody it sees fit? To mention the US Supreme Court in the same breath is to cast a dark shadow over it.
Parliament’s tyrannical hand has been strengthened by removing its Law Lords. Where will the judges come from when Parliament impeaches someone? Or has impeachment been removed as a statute; did nobody consider this?
Where was Privy Council advice on the use of the Royal Prerogative when a Prime Minster persuaded his house to vote in judgement on a former British Mandate? This deed was an ‘Act of Attainder’ in all but name, a punishment without trial. No light here but darkness.
Ref: External Links: British Tradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
I am concerned, worried even. I know from this particular blog that I probably irritated at least a couple of the noble members of the House and blog.
We have, especially lately, seen a decline in bloggers. My concern is that we will lose this line of communication through what may be seen as hostile posts. It is of the utmost importance that this line of communication is kept open. It is important the noble members blogs do not just become trivial merely to save argument. I can understand that continuing disagreement is not very pleasant but it is not personal.
There are always two sides and I strongly believe that both learn from this blog even though they may appear at odds at times. To come here and post as a member of the House must seem like being the PM at question time, the vultures waiting to attack. I hope the noble members keep coming back voluntarily, I won`t say I will make life easy but at times I will learn and agree.
The noble members have no need to come here or listen to our argument, they do and it is appreciated, greatly by myself. I hope they will keep coming, I feel the benefit for all is worth it.
“To mention the US Supreme Court in the same breath is to cast a dark…”
Don’t the individual states have a supreme court as well in the USA? That would be the comparison with California and NY/state.
Yes, you’re right. I think all states have Supreme Courts but since ours is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom its counterpart is the Supreme Court of the United States. I stand to be corrected but the US Supreme Court operates within the same jurisdiction as Congress whereas our Supreme Court operates outside of the jurisdiction of Parliament which is a court in its own right. I took particular offence at BDS equating the two. Pragmatically they do similar jobs but on high principle they are quite different; touchy subject.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/
but not to cast a dark shadow over the Supreme court of California, and to cast light on that of Kentucky.