| Genuine question from me. 13:36 - Sep 24 with 1378 views | homer_123 |
So, today the Court decided, unanimously, that the proroguing of Parliament was within the purview of the Courts(regardless of the subsequent ruling it being illegal).
It sets a very clear precedent. That Courts can intervene where, before, they could not.
Is there a dark/ flip side to this? Parliament and Governments have a degree of freedom that others do not, for various (sometimes good) reasons. Whilst I welcome the outcome today - in the long term is there any reason why this would not be a good situation (in that Courts can now be involved in this going forward)?
I'm not talking about the legality of Johnson's proroguing but the fact it's now within the purview of the Courts. [Post edited 24 Sep 2019 13:42]
|  |
| |  |
| Genuine question from me. on 13:39 - Sep 24 with 1345 views | Bluefish |
I see it that it only becomes active because he is trying to use an old law or an incorrect law to bypass the process. If process is followed there is no place for the court |  |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 13:45 - Sep 24 with 1300 views | Steve_M |
I think the key here is that, in the judgement of the court, the proroguing was done in order to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny. I don't think this necessarily sets a precedent for a decision made with Parliamentary support. |  |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 13:46 - Sep 24 with 1295 views | Mookamoo |
I think the ruling was made with the full understanding of the political context - they've basically called Johnson out for not allowing accountability. You would hope there is a specific set of circumstances that have allowed them to make the ruling which hopefully shouldn't happen again for some time.
There is the danger our Supreme Court could go the same way as the US in that the governing body try to pack it with extreme versions of their own supporters whenever possible. |  | | |
| Genuine question from me. on 13:50 - Sep 24 with 1275 views | sparks |
Parliament could pass a law excluding specific acts from court oversight in principle.
Not convinced the court has extended its remit her in any event. Just new facts to apply existing principles to. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 14:01 - Sep 24 with 1244 views | Guthrum |
No. The courts can only intervene if there is a legal challenge to a future prorogation. This will be an extremely rare event, as most are not any way contentious and there are good reasons for them to happen. It would only be a problem if the reasons were not lawful ones.
Effectively, they always did have the right to pass judgement, it's just never arisen in recent centuries. |  |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 15:58 - Sep 24 with 1147 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Genuine question from me. on 14:01 - Sep 24 by Guthrum |
No. The courts can only intervene if there is a legal challenge to a future prorogation. This will be an extremely rare event, as most are not any way contentious and there are good reasons for them to happen. It would only be a problem if the reasons were not lawful ones.
Effectively, they always did have the right to pass judgement, it's just never arisen in recent centuries. |
The supreme court has ruled it was unlawful to prorouge parliament until 14 th October. Had it been for a shorter period they may not have deemed it unlawful. |  |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 16:09 - Sep 24 with 1137 views | itfcjoe |
Surely it does the opposite - it stops parliament being shut without a good and fair reason?
That is all they've done |  |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 16:25 - Sep 24 with 1094 views | homer_123 |
| Genuine question from me. on 16:09 - Sep 24 by itfcjoe |
Surely it does the opposite - it stops parliament being shut without a good and fair reason?
That is all they've done |
Huh? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Genuine question from me. on 18:36 - Sep 24 with 1028 views | factual_blue |
'To every subject of this land, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over three hundred years ago, ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’'
Lord Denning 1977, quoted by michael gove on his installation as Lord Chancellor. |  |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 18:38 - Sep 24 with 1017 views | SpruceMoose |
| Genuine question from me. on 18:36 - Sep 24 by factual_blue |
'To every subject of this land, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over three hundred years ago, ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’'
Lord Denning 1977, quoted by michael gove on his installation as Lord Chancellor. |
I think you meant Michael Bolton. |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 18:44 - Sep 24 with 991 views | itfcjoe |
| Genuine question from me. on 16:25 - Sep 24 by homer_123 |
Huh? |
All the courts have done is stopped Govt unlawfully shutting down parliament, they haven’t interfered in the way you suggest - they have allowed parliament to carry on doing their jobs.
The dark side would be had they failed to do so that any PM could shut down parliament - they’ve allowed it to retain their voice | |
| |
| Genuine question from me. on 18:47 - Sep 24 with 987 views | factual_blue |
| Genuine question from me. on 18:38 - Sep 24 by SpruceMoose |
I think you meant Michael Bolton. |
Bolton is a palindrome of Ipswich. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
