It Seems It's A Legal Eagle That Got It Wrong.....

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-pm-was-advised-by-attorney-general-suspension-was-lawful-11818599
Any PM has to rely on advice from experts, it seems on this occasion that advice was wrong. Will Geoff Cox get the old tin tac?

[Ellipsis]

Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption on the R4 Today program today made interesting listening. He said that if he was in Geoffrey Cox's position he would have given the same advice as Cox did. He also said that the Supreme Court were justified in what they did, by the extreme behaviour of the government who "sought to undermine the democratic legitimacy of public decision making".

You can hear the full interview here, starting at 1:15:36

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0008nwz

[THELOONYCORBYN]

""sought to undermine the democratic legitimacy of public decision making""

ah, i see , like the saboteurs and traitors to undermine the democratic legitimacy of public voting, a vote which said leave the eussr, but they are doing ther damnest to overturn with co-ordinated efforts any possible way they can...that sort of democratic undermining is ok though is it ?

[Ellipsis]

> that sort of democratic undermining is ok though is it ?

If by "ok" you mean "lawful", yes it is. Or at least so far it hasn't been shown to be unlawful, unlike the proroguing of Parliament for five weeks with no reason given.

[Old_Geezer]

More deemed to be unlawful.

[Gromit]

OG

Unlawful and deemed to be unlawful are the same thing. Unlawful.

[Khandro]

The supremos stated in their own findings that they were treading on new ground (I forget the actual phrase) This was pointed out by a Tory back-bencher this afternoon, claiming that when the Attorney General gave his advice to Boris, it was in good faith & relevant to the situation at that time.

[Gromit]

Khandro
The Supreme Court did not change the rules.
The Attorney General’s advice may have been in good faith but it was wrong.

A (different) Attorney General ruled in 2003 that the War with Iraq was legal. That too was dubious, but no one challenged it in Court. Chilcott said the ruling was unsatisfactory.

[Theland]

Great posts. Interesting.
I wonder though, how much per hour were the lawyers paid for presenting evidence to the Supreme Court?