Today sees the opening for business of the British Supreme Court. This innovation is said by its advocates to be desirable because it separates the Judiciary and the Legislature according to the principle of separation of Powers. This ignores the fact that, as the Law Lord, Lord Diplock remarked in the case of Duport v Sirs in 1980, 'It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British Constitution is firmly based upon the separation of Powers; Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interprets them.'

The arrival of this Court was said by another senior judge,  Lord Neuberger, to have been the result of 'what appears to have been a last -minute decision over a glass of whisky.' The instigator of this fatuous and dangerous piece of tinkering with our centuries - old Constitution was of course, that overgrown schoolboy, the preeningly arrogant and deeply shallow Tony Blair, who for a certainty will go down in  history of our country as its most hideously destructive leader ever, until  - well, until Gordon Brown.

So what was Blair about when he orchestrated this change in typically anti-democratic fashion, not bothering to consult any senior judge before announcing it?  It is not after all as if Blair is or was a particularly good lawyer himself, or had any knowledge to speak of of British Constitutional History. Perhaps he consulted Cherie whilst in bed of a night.  What drove him was not any knowledge of or respect for the practicalities  of the issue. It was  all part of his 'modernising ' vision. There must be change, because for a Progressive, change must be good. The old order is by definition old-fashioned and out of date; no longer up to speed. The man seemed incapable of seeing that something - anything - that worked very well for centuries should perhaps be left alone. As far as the House of Lords as the highest court in the land was concerned, his overpowering ego made him think that he could do better.

But there was more to it than that. As 'Progressives,' Blair and New Labour were and are antipathetic to anything traditionally British because these grow out of the history and traditions of the British people and reflect their will. Ethnically originated offices like that of  Lord Chancellor and the Law Lords sitting in the House of Lords as the supreme appellate Court must therefore be destroyed and replaced with what is thought of as 'modern' (and therefore superior), as part of New Labour's 'Year Zero' reconstruction of Britain by these leftist fanatics.

What is 'modern' is what is American.  A written Constitution  which refers to universalised principles which can be interpreted at will  rather than the traditions of the British people and their laws based on precedent. A Constitution where the separation of Powers is laid down in black and white; A President as Chief Executive, (How long can the Monarchy survive?) a Legislature and a Supreme Court. It is no accident that along with his institution of a Supreme  Court, Blair started acting like a United States President, while his cheer-leaders in the media referred to his wife, the awful Cheri as 'First Lady,' when the First Lady of the Land is of course, the Queen. Only, Blair was much more powerful than any US president. Taking advantage of our unwritten constitution and lacking any respect for it or us who trusted it, he abused it and us by ignoring it, like any banana republic Dictator. He could and did simply by-pass Parliament which he despised. An American President by contrast can be stopped in his tracks by Congress and the Senate.

''To Bork (v.trans) - to vitriolically rubbish in such a way as to  deny  public office. esp. by Left - Liberals''.

But there is still  more to it than that. Tony Blair and other radicals in New Labour, 60s and 70s activists, worship the idea of a written Constitution and Supreme Court because they saw how the US Supreme Court had been, as the Supreme Court nominee Robert H Bork has put it. 'an Agent of Modern Liberalism ' in the USA.  Bork was himself denied membership of the Court by the Senate when he came before it for approval in a process now known as 'to Bork,'  because he subscribed to the doctrine of 'originality,' ie that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intentions of those who wrote it rather than according to the personal preferences of the Judges. Lord Diplock, in the case mentioned above, remarked that, 'the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intentions what that intention was, and to give effect to it. Where the meaning of the Statutory Words is plain and unambiguous it is not for judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider the consequences of doing so would be expedient or immoral in controversial cases.  Under our law it is Parliament which is paramount.'

Inventing 'fancied ambiguities' is however what the US Supreme Court has consistently been doing, plcking 'Rights out of thin air' to further equality at the expense of freedom in the US, as Bork remarks in his book 'Slouching towards  Gomorrrah:  Modern Liberalism and American Decline.'  'In its cultural-political role,' he goes on, 'the Court almost invariably advances the agenda of modern Liberalism.That is to say, the Justices, or a majority of them, are responsible in no small  measure for the spread of both radical individualism and radical egalitariansim... When liberty and equality come into conflict, the Court almost always prefers equality , even in is modern corrupt, egalitarian form.'

And this is what Blair and New Labour had in mind when instituting our very own Supreme Court. Of course, there will be an allegedly impartial panel to choose future members of it - unlike in the US where at least candidates are scrutinised by the Senate in public. This panel will itself have been chosen from among  the politically correct and will for a certainty itself choose on that basis from among candidates who have risen because they have conformed to it.

And then there is the fact of European law and Brussels,  which rather than Parliament is  now paramount.

The left-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-majoritarian thrust of our judicial system is developing strongly indeed and looking more and more permanent - as intended by its inventors.