Court Ruling Goes Against Johnson

[Top Cats Hat 10]

Just now, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Does the Supreme Court ruling now mean if the Government were to implement a "new" law that was passed by a large majority through the house, it could be stopped or altered by the Supreme Court. In other words, has the decision to un prorogue the prorogue set new precedents.  Serious question.

Only if it is challenged on proper legal grounds.

 

You seem to have a problem with government being subject to proper legal scrutiny.

[melthebell 863]

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Only if it is challenged on proper legal grounds.

 

You seem to have a problem with government being subject to proper legal scrutiny.

And of parliament and our courts being sovereign lol

[Manlinose 10]

On 28/09/2019 at 09:19, melthebell said:

And of parliament and our courts being sovereign lol

Surely you can't have Parliament and the Courts both being sovereign. One has to have sovereignty over the other.

 

It's simplistic, but not necessarily wrong to go back to the old adage that Parliament makes the laws and The Courts interpret them (although admittedly not relevant to this particular discussion)

[Top Cats Hat 10]

3 minutes ago, Manlinose said:

It's simplistic, but not necessarily wrong to go back to the old adage that Parliament makes the laws and The Courts interpret them (although admittedly not relevant to this particular discussion)

It is actually more accurate to say that Parliament makes the law and the courts enforce them.

[Manlinose 10]

6 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

It is actually more accurate to say that Parliament makes the law and the courts enforce them.

Sometimes yes, but many legal disputes end up in Court because the Law is open to alternative interpretations and it is the Court's job to adjudicate on which interpretation, in that Court's opinion, most closely matches what they believe Parliament intended

[melthebell 863]

9 hours ago, Manlinose said:

Surely you can't have Parliament and the Courts both being sovereign. One has to have sovereignty over the other.

 

It's simplistic, but not necessarily wrong to go back to the old adage that Parliament makes the laws and The Courts interpret them (although admittedly not relevant to this particular discussion)

Well I'll let you decide what I meant by sovereign

[Earthling 0]

History won't judge this court ruling favourably. Virtually everyone was flaber-gasted by it, which says a lot.

As for John Major, he's a bit choice; didn't he prorogue parliament for 2 weeks to avoid scrutiny about the cash for questions thing?

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

53 minutes ago, Earthling said:

History won't judge this court ruling favourably. Virtually everyone was flaber-gasted by it, which says a lot.

As for John Major, he's a bit choice; didn't he prorogue parliament for 2 weeks to avoid scrutiny about the cash for questions thing?

I doubt the court will give one.   

 

Their job is to objectively look at the dispute presented before them, hear the evidence and make a ruling.  

 

They should never have to feel any pressure from what the public might think.  To do so would completely obliterate their independent thought process.

Edited October 5, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Earthling 0]

32 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

I doubt the court will give one.   

 

Their job is to objectively look at the dispute presented before them, hear the evidence and make a ruling.  

 

They should never have to feel any pressure from what the public might think.  To do so would completely obliterate their independent thought process.

It wasn't just the general public, pretty much all the commentators that were legal experts didn't see it coming either!

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, Earthling said:

It wasn't just the general public, pretty much all the commentators that were legal experts didn't see it coming either!

That is complete rubbish.

 

After the Scottish court ruling, most expert legal opinion was that there was a very high likelihood that the Supreme Court would rule the same way for the same reasons. The only surprise was that the ruling was unanimous as it was thought that a couple of very pro-establishment judges would side with Johnson.

[Longcol 604]

46 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

Three weeks, apparently:

 

https://fullfact.org/online/john-major-proroguing/

 

I suppose there wouldn't have been much point in challenging it at the time, even if anybody had had the idea, as an election was about to happen anyway.

 

But, yes, it would appear on the face of it that he used the prorogation to prevent the official report about Tory corruption being published before the election.  At least, as the link says, it "had that effect".

 

Didn't help him much, of course.

 

It was also before the Supreme Court was established so not sure who would have heard a legal challenge - presumably the House of Lords - which IIRC had an inbuilt Tory majority as hereditary peers still sat in the Lords.