Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[catsmate]

Legalistic trickery.

Lack of comprehension.

 

[catsmate]

The Bill of Rights is a red herring.

If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself

Not the way the Westminster system works, though this ommission may soon be corrected.

and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

Not what happened.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

Again, you're moving goalposts to cover your previous mistakes.

 

[ctamblyn]

Those paragraphs lack supporting evidence for the claims.

What is their evidence for their claim?

It just seems so different. Just yesterday while reading Twitter someone referenced Pickering v. Board of education. There isn't a major case on it or anything. But finding specific references on UK issues is like pulling teeth.

If you're asking for a more detailed argument in support of the SC's decision, I think the rest of the document I linked, together with the cases it references, should provide an answer.

 

[Darat]

Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords.

And now the Tories are saying it needs to be curtailed, abolished and so on. For those outside the UK, it was the Tories that created the SC and set what it can and can't do.... Yes you really couldn't make this up.

 

[lomiller]

That seems to sum up the responses to my question. There is no written law that limits any discussions between the PM and the Queen and the SC has no explicit authority to adjudicate on these discussions. They have just assumed that power for themselves.

I'm guessing that the Privy Council either doesn't exist any more or it is irrelevant.


No, I would prefer the Queen's position to be elected - even if it is mostly ceremonial.

However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws.

The job of the SC is to interpret the law, and that is what they did.

The Crown cannot prorogue Parliament against its will or in order to prevent it from taking action. This is one of the best-established principles in English law. There was a long civil war fought to decide the issue. The only twist here is that the SC has established that this still applies when the Crown is acting in good faith but has been lied to by the PM.

 

[Nessie]

Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If you're asking for a more detailed argument in support of the SC's decision, I think the rest of the document I linked, together with the cases it references, should provide an answer.

I read it. Here is the thing. It provides very little support for the claims. It is focused almost entirely on the questions of justiciability and Johnson's behavior. It may be accepted premises over there, but there is no alien exception for skeptical inquiry.

 

[GlennB]

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

You win this year's star prize for understatement

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

The Scottish court found that he did and the SC didnt overturn that. Plus he refused to provide evidence on why he prorogued parliament to the court.

He could have plotted with the Queen to do this of course but i think its unlikely.

He lied to the public for sure. As did JRM. As did many Tories.

 

[zooterkin]

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

FTFY by removing unnecessary words.

BoJo's mendacity is almost in the same league as Trump's.

 

[Garrison]

Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

Why is that considered sinking?

 

[dudalb]

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

IN the US the Supreme Court can rule a act of congress or something the POTUS does unconstitutional . DO you even understand that is what a Supreme Court is for?

 

[dudalb]

Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

Boris out to look out his window,see that Statue of the Lord Protector outside of the Houses of Parliament, and think hard...really hard.

Though I think smart thing for Labor to do is just let Boris hang and twist in the wind for a while....

 

[BobTheCoward]

Boris out to look out his window,see that Statue of the Lord Protector outside of the Houses of Parliament, and think hard...really hard.

Though I think smart thing for Labor to do is just let Boris hang and twist in the wind for a while....

Do their voters want them to play games or to govern?

 

[Information Analyst]

The Sun "Debbie, 19 from Stevenage, what a crackerjack unlike the supreme court who are simply crackers"

It says a lot that that could as equally be genuinely from the Scum as a piss-take of it.

 

[Information Analyst]

...who the Hell is James IV?

The King of Spoonerised Roman Numerals, presumably.

 

[jimbob]

...and wait...



...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Nessie is Scottish.

James VI/I would fit

 

[Information Analyst]

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

Freudian.