Prorogation Ruled To Be Unlawful

[THECORBYLOON]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261

What now for Boris?

[jim360]

It is the Court's job to interpret the law. They have done that.

[Old_Geezer]

You don't interpret new limits that aren't there.
They have now been added by precedent by the judges.

[naomi24]

//It is the Court's job to interpret the law. They have done that. //

It's parliament's job to uphold democracy. Had they done that none of this would have happened ... but they didn't.

[THECORBYLOON]

OG, Appeal Courts often interpret legislation. If a word or a phrase in legislation is open to interpretation, the courts have been known to study Hansard (the record made of proceedings in Parliament) to determine what the INTENDED meaning was.

[THECORBYLOON]

OG, if the PM had prorogued Parliament for a year, would that have been reasonable?

[Khandro]

Corby //You had confidence in the unelected Justices then, did you not?//
Yes I, along with everyone else did -who predicted this outcome?

jim your theory as to the workings of the EU are just that - a theory.

In practice whatever the Commission decrees gets rubber-stamped by the parliament.
There is also a book called The European Parliament for Dummies which is worth a read, particularly how it (and you) are signed up to 'Eurabian Dialogue', which it thinks wasn't a particularly brilliant idea & neither do I.

[Togo]

//You had confidence in the unelected Justices then, did you not?//

The confidence that we all held in Judges, to be impartial and make decisions not based on personal preferences has been proven to be misguided. We always suspected such but for the sake of not undermining the widespread belief that it was so, never voiced our intuitive feeling too strongly. We now have irrefutable proof that we were correct in our mistrust of the judiciary. They are contaminated and now proving themselves to be toxic as well. Now you know why the communist and fascist dictators executed all the judges when they seized power. Must we do something similar to regain control of our serving bodies?

[jim360]

Whether or not Parliament has done its job is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Courts should. They obviously should, and they obviously have.

The Judges' ruling is indeed setting a new precedent, but it's a response to circumstances. Previous Prime Ministers have not used prorogation without the implicit consent of the House -- for example, the 1948 case saw the Commons imposing its will on the Lords -- so there was no need for the Courts, or indeed anybody else, to step in.

No doubt the Courts have pushed boundaries in a way that they might not have been expected to, but in the end they have reasserted the supremacy of Parliament over the executive, and, frankly, that is how things should be.

[jim360]

// jim your theory as to the workings of the EU are just that - a theory.

In practice whatever the Commission decrees gets rubber-stamped by the parliament. //

Perhaps, but if in principle the Parliament can overturn the Commission then it still remains the case that there is no "rule" here. Merely a democratically-elected body agreeing with the recommendations of the Commission.

I don't wish to pretend that the EU is perfect, either in function or in design, but you are simply overstating your case. There are flaws, but the flaws are not that we are being "ruled", either by EU Commissioners or by judges.

[THECORBYLOON]

KHANDRO, you expressed no concerns about their being unelected and no concerns about their impartiality before yesterday.

Did all eleven Justices become partial overnight?

[jim360]

As to Togo's last post, it is pretty clear that it's based on a flawed definition of impartial: as in, they would only have been impartial if they agreed with him. No more warped definition of impartiality can there be than that. It's factually incorrect, and it's incorrect by its very essence.

[THECORBYLOON]

TOGO, when you say "we", who are they?

[Togo]

I see that Jim is projecting again. Attributing his very own intransigent mindset to whoever disagrees with him. Old trick of the left wing.

Certainly not you CBL. We know that you prefer to to think too hard or see too far. "we" are the people who have warned of such bias in the past, only to be dismissed as cynics.......Now we know that we were the realists after all.

[jim360]

As Geoffrey Cox has just said: "We accept the ruling of the Supreme Court, and we are proud that we have a country capable of giving independent judgements of this kind."

Any suggestion otherwise, as you've spent all your time making, are deplorable.

[jim360]

Also, it's a matter of record that I respect the impartiality of judges whether or not they agree with me. So there's no projection there, either.

[Zacs-Master]

Are toxic judges running the country worse than an unelected EU?

[Togo]

//Are toxic judges running the country worse than an unelected EU?//

Dumb question......of course they are. The EUSSR doesn't try to hide or deny the fact that it is undemocratic. These stards are hiding their duplicity and lying about it for good measure. There will be a day of reckoning.

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/exclusive-why-this-supreme-court-was-never-going-to-find-bojos-proroguation-legal/

[Zacs-Master]

You must be a bit worried about living in a country where you perceive the judiciary to be 'toxic' and undemocratic tho, Togo. How will you square that with yourself when your leave vote was intended to set us free of such Machiavellian machinations?