Jump to content

Court Ruling Goes Against Johnson

Recommended Posts

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Earthling said:

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?

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.

 

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

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.

Yes, Lord Justices Reed and Carnwath were both on the minority, dissenting, side in the original Miller case.

Edited by CaptainSwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Longcol said:

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.

Yes, it would have been the House of Lords, if it had been appealed all the way up.  But in its capacity as final court of appeal, "House of Lords" just meant the 12 Law Lords, who became the Supreme Court in 2009, not the whole House.

 

The only complication would have been the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the government.  His status in the HoL-as-appeal-court was never very clear - he sometimes took part, but usually didn't.  Presumably he wouldn't have been allowed to take part in that case.  Academic now as he's not part of the Supreme Court.

 

It's true that the HoL has generally had a Tory bias.  I forget the figures, but the number of pieces of proposed Labour legislation that have been challenged there has historically been far higher (pro rata) than the number of pieces of proposed Tory legislation.  But that would have been irrelevant to its former judicial function, unless you're going to argue that the judiciary itself has a pro-Tory bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.