Court Ruling Goes Against Johnson

[Halibut]

3 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Doesn’t surprise one iota. I’ve just read littlejohns latest rant. Don’t do the same if you’ve just had your tea.

 

I don’t see this ending. Positions are just more and more entrenched. Should we expect violence now?

Scumbags applauding a scumbag.😐

[Mister Gee]

12 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Doesn’t surprise one iota. I’ve just read littlejohns latest rant. Don’t do the same if you’ve just had your tea.

 

I don’t see this ending. Positions are just more and more entrenched. Should we expect violence now?

I bet you couldn't make it up.

[apelike]

2 hours ago, Magilla said:

Aye, Geoffrey Cox who's flawed legal advice led directly to the current and latest fiasco

But that wasn't the case. Any legal advice he gave was sound at the time, given the then current laws in place. The Supreme Court made a new law by their judgement thus making the previous prorogue unlawful. It means that the prerogative powers of the PM can now be the subject of the Courts and because of that it was not flawed legal advice.

 

1 hour ago, Albert the Cat said:

The same attorney general that couldn’t work out what is lawful and what isn’t. Some AG he is. He was even just a “bit” wrong, he was 11-0 wrong. 

See above...

Edited September 26, 2019 by apelike

[altus]

30 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Doesn’t surprise one iota. I’ve just read littlejohns latest rant. Don’t do the same if you’ve just had your tea.

 

I don’t see this ending. Positions are just more and more entrenched. Should we expect violence now?

Someone has has attacked Jess Philips's office.

[apelike]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You do realise that she is talking metaphorically, don’t you?

And so were the MP's in parliament! I dont think the bill that was passed was called "surrender."

 

3 minutes ago, altus said:

Someone has has attacked Jess Philips's office.

A good advert for cannabis.....

Edited September 26, 2019 by apelike

[altus]

9 minutes ago, apelike said:

But that wasn't the case. Any legal advice he gave was sound at the time, given the then current laws in place. The Supreme Court made a new law by their judgement thus making the previous prorogue unlawful. It means that the prerogative powers of the PM can now be the subject of the Courts and because of that it was not flawed legal advice.

He claims the legal advice he gave was sound but as he has refused to release that legal advice we don't know if it was or not. Tellingly, he wouldn't even provide it to the Supreme Court when asked for it. You'd think if he was certain it was correct he would have provided it as it would have helped the government's case.

 

The Supreme Court did not make a new law, they just reinforced that the executive cannot avoid scrutiny by parliament by proroguing parliament.

 

Just imagine if the Supreme Court had sided with Boris. There'd be nothing to stop a future government from proroguing parliament so they could take us back into the EU (joining the Schengen area and ditching the Pound for the Euro along the way). Any legal challenge would site this case as evidence they were allowed to.

[Longcol]

20 minutes ago, apelike said:

But that wasn't the case. Any legal advice he gave was sound at the time, given the then current laws in place. The Supreme Court made a new law by their judgement thus making the previous prorogue unlawful. It means that the prerogative powers of the PM can now be the subject of the Courts and because of that it was not flawed legal advice.

 

Nope - they tried to conflate a recess (which requires parliamentary approval) and prorogation. With flimsy excuses that the prorogation had nothing to do with wanting to railroad through a no deal Brexit.

 

Cummings wants an elected dictatorship.

[tinfoilhat]

46 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

I bet you couldn't make it up.

I honestly couldn't without ordering a tanker of bile in first. 

[apelike]

1 hour ago, altus said:

The Supreme Court did not make a new law, they just reinforced that the executive cannot avoid scrutiny by parliament by proroguing parliament.

By becoming involved in what was traditionally a political matter and ruling on it the Courts have changed the law and set a precedent. The Attorney General thinks it has and has stated such and so have many legal experts. This has changed the constitutional process not only here but in other Commonwealth Countries as well that have the same political system of proroguing. Its not just about scrutiny by parliament now but scrutiny by the courts as well. Because of this it is now made into law that the prerogative power of Her Majesty, advised by the Prime Minister, can be the subject—the justiciable subject—of the court’s control whereas before it was not. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by apelike

[Top Cats Hat]

2 minutes ago, apelike said:

Because of this it is now made into law that the prerogative power of Her Majesty, advised by the Prime Minister, can be the subject—the justiciable subject—of the court’s control whereas before it was not. 

Surely that’s a good thing?