Your question needs some clarification. Are you saying that judges make political decisions, but shouldn't, or that they don't, but should be allowed to?My take is that the growth in governmental functions during the 20th century demanded a development of administrative law, by which the judiciary could hold the government to account for decisions affecting the lives of citizens. That might seem to frustrated ministers as if the judiciary were sticking its nose into politics, but in reality it's no more than standing up for citizens against unlawful acts of government or other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. Judicial review isn't political in the sense that it questions policies - it merely considers such matters as whether an administrative decision was made in conformance with the authorising statute, or was ultra vires (i.e. beyond the authority of the public body), or whether the decision respected the principles of natural justice, i.e. adequate notice, fair hearing and freedom from bias. We should not allow a frustrated government to clip the judiciary's wings - that way lies tyranny.
Robert Fish ● 1956d