More Attention Seekers Think They Can Change The Law If They Don't Like It.

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/heterosexual-couple-take-fight-for-civil-partnership-to-supreme-court-11372119
The law is very clear, same sex only, do they think them lining the pockets of bI00d sucking lawyers will change that?

[Mamyalynne]

I'll be interested to see the eventual outcome of this, it's been running a while now.

[woofgang]

so the law never gets changed then?

[ToraToraTora]

its does but never by a judge.

[Jackdaw33]

Not so, TTT. Case history is teeming with judge-made law. Negligence is just one case in point.

[rockyracoon]

I thought they did away with Civil Partnerships when same sex marriage became legal.

[ToraToraTora]

no, JD judges make judgements and set precedent and as a result of that interpretation can be set but the legislature make laws not the judiciary. The civil partnership law is quite clear, same sex, they are arguing that it's wrong and they may have a point but that's not the issue, the judge cannot change the wording in the statute.

[Zacs-Master]

Yes, thanks to the Supreme Court legislature (parliament) was devolved from the House of Lords. 2009, I think.

[Jackdaw33]

No he can't but he could rule that the law falls foul of the Human Rights Act, thus compelling parliament to change the law. In effect parliament would be doing the judge's bidding so to that extent he has forced a change in the law.

[ToraToraTora]

yes JD a possibility but it won't be a high priority for a government with a lot on it's plate.

[Zacs-Master]

Surely if he ruled that the law falls foul of the Human Rights Act there would be no need to change legislature as the HRA would take care of it(?).

[Jackdaw33]

The House of Lords in this context refers only to the law lords, other lords played no part. In essence there is no difference between the old H of L and the new Supreme Court. Just a bit of tinkering to make it look as though it was somehow more democratic.

[ToraToraTora]

"Surely if he ruled that the law falls foul of the Human Rights Act there would be no need to change legislature as the HRA would take care of it(?). " - err, no, the statute would have to be changed, the government may well appeal anyway, ironically the it could end up in the ECJ!

[Jackdaw33]

By the time it gets there we should be long gone.

[Zacs-Master]

The Supreme Court Appointments Commission is supposed to take care of that. It’s inner workings are a complete anathema to me.

[Zacs-Master]

Apologies. Substitute ‘anathema’ with ‘mystery’.

[ToraToraTora]

anathema is fine, you can have one or many.

[Zacs-Master]

But it’s not what I meant. Where’s NJ when you need him ;-)

[Jackdaw33]

Anathema - an abomination.

[Zacs-Master]

Yes, I’m well aware of what anathema means. Hence my correction.