I think the open question is between the british model of professional litigators of the court, and professional advocates for the individual, and the american model without the intermediary position.
It is much harder to ‘pull bullshit’ in court in the british model. It is much easier to ‘pull bullshit’ in legislation in the british model. I am not yet sure if the house of lords is superior to the supreme court or not, but there is good reason to think it might be. Or, that the lords AND a supreme court would be superior to either condition.
American constitution is better given the fact that our founding documents (declaration, constitution, bill of rights) are written, and consistent, if not as consistent as we could make them today – and aside from the fact that one requires all three documents to make sense of the constitution or the bill of rights because the natural law of reciprocity is not stated, and instead states men are equal rather than must be equal for the law of reciprocity (natural law) to fulfill its purpose of harmony.
Conversely, the american model is far more common law (meaning permissive – less regulation) than the british model (meaning impermissive – more regulation).
So this means that while americans have a superior juridical presumption (optimistic leading to more innovation, but more court disputes to resolve) while the british have less litigation to resolve because of higher regulation. I think the impact on the cultures is vast and the regulation culture in the uk has led to the feminization of the british male in less than eighty years.
The optimum is probably the mixture of the two systems, with near zero regulation in america, and adding the intermediary between the lawyer and the court so that less nonsense occurs in court.
It can be embarrassing to listen to young lawyers speak for their clients in court, rather than tell them “there is no fking way this is gonna fly so I won’t take your money”.