"Supreme" Court created by Tony Blair?

It is true but FYI 9 of the 11 judges have been appointed under conservative governments. None however
are political appointments in the way the supreme court in the USA appoints judges.
Of course we don't know how they voted and it is very possible they didn't vote at all.

The Supreme Court is just the new name for the old House of Lords as a court. I've no idea what the rationale was but the Blair government made a number of changes that seemed to be mindlessly aping the Americans.

As @nortanlite says, it is not party political like the American one, and also, because we are not slaves to a 200-year-old written constitution, if the government does not like a Supreme Court ruling, it can pass a new law.

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?query=%28uksc%29&highlight=1&method=boolean&mask_path=%2F&show=200&sort=date

11600 judgements from the SC and suddenly the haters of democracy think it's ****.

when it was formed, i don't think even Blair thought they would make the rules & laws up as it plodded along

what laws have they made up, how could they???

read paragraph 50

don't be silly, the supreme court can't make laws

That's the para that starts "For the purposes of the present case, therefore,... "

oh really?

They made up a law against prorogation.

There was no law against it, but they ruled it was unlawful.

Thx for the replies Northan, Ram, Bap & Tobe.  Cheers for the confirmations & additional infos

Sep 25, 2019 -- 10:17PM, tobermory wrote:

They made up a law against prorogation.  There was no law against it, but they ruled it was unlawful.

Did you read the judgement? 

Where did they make up a law in their thought process which was:

(1)       Is the question of whether the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen was lawful justiciable in a court of law?

(2)       If it is, by what standard is its lawfulness to be judged?

(3)       By that standard, was it lawful?

(4)       If it was not, what remedy should the court grant?

quite a few have an open relationship with the Eu and work on several bodies connected with it.

dave wrote, suddenly the haters of democracy think it's ****.

Why would remainers think that?

the SC is just a rebranding of something that existed for decades - only real thickos thinks it's some kind of liberal conspiracy

For an action to be unlawful there has to be a law prohibiting that action.

There was no law against prorogation.

So clearly it was not justiciable.

Most sane people know that tobes.

So you both agree with the judges first consideration?

Is the question of whether the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen was lawful justiciable in a court of law?


ok so they consider the issue in paras 28 to 37

Where do you disagree with them?

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/41.html&query=(uksc)

.

Well no I don't agree with it at all.

It gives 2 examples of courts intervening in politics and they are both cases where the executive was trying to do things that were forbidden by laws passed by parliament. In this case the executive had done something that is not prohibited or restricted by any law.

If I was in Bojo's shoes and proroguing Parliament was legal (not disingenuously) after consulting the Attorney General I'd do that without a moment's hesitation as this impasse need to be eradicated asap; Bojo asked for a General Election and the Opposition refused.

What more can be done to eradicate this impasse if the MPs are unwilling? By-pass the sh1t load of them self-serving invertebrates.

By-pass the sh1t load of them self-serving invertebrates.

another democracy hater

Sep 27, 2019 -- 12:20AM, tobermory wrote:

Well no I don't agree with it at all.It gives 2 examples of courts intervening in politics and they are both cases where the executive was trying to do things that were forbidden by laws passed by parliament. In this case the executive had done something that is not prohibited or restricted by any law.

not sure you have spent enough time reading those paras

note
In the case of prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different issues. The first is whether a prerogative power exists, and if it does exist, its extent. The second is whether, granted that a prerogative power exists, and that it has been exercised within its limits, the exercise of the power is open to legal challenge on some other basis. The first of these issues undoubtedly lies within the jurisdiction of the courts and is justiciable, as all the parties to these proceedings accept

So all parties accepted that a court can rule on the extent of a prerogative power.

Do you disagree with this?

The sovereignty of Parliament would, however, be undermined as the foundational principle of our constitution if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased. That, however, would be the position if there was no legal limit upon the power to prorogue Parliament (subject to a few exceptional circumstances in which, under statute, Parliament can meet while it stands prorogued). An unlimited power of prorogation would therefore be incompatible with the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Spiders Brooch dave, what was the meaning behind the waering of it by that harridan-revolting looking thing

^wearing

Is democracy hater a new insult? I took part in a democratic vote and the promised action has been denied, should I embrace democracy after this? The democracy lovers are now hoping democracy will actually be reversed to suit their own ends, very odd.

The SC said

An unlimited power of prorogation would therefore be incompatible with the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Do you agree with that saddo?

The brooch dave

terry, stop embarrassing yourself

I haven't looked into it at all and rarely see any news dave, better things to do. A very simple democratic vote has been more or less ignored, I do know that.

Now if you were honest and not just a no mark troll sent here to keep as talking about nothing you would have replied.
Well Terry what does the spider symbolise?
Spider bestows the power to work magic over people and things. By weaving it gains a certain element of control;Once the prey is wrapped up,this control is complete.
That's why she was wearing it Tel.

Thanks dave,i thought it was odd wearing that ugly thing but yeah of course that's why.

Spider bestows the power to work magic over people and things. By weaving it gains a certain element of control;Once the prey is wrapped up,this control is complete.
That's why she was wearing it Tel.

ffs

Sep 27, 2019 -- 9:42AM, saddo wrote:

I haven't looked into it at all and rarely see any news dave, better things to do. A very simple democratic vote has been more or less ignored, I do know that.

art 50 followed by two years of negotiations and a satisfactory withdrawal agreement blocked mainly by the DUP and right wing tories is "ignored"?

Sep 27, 2019 -- 9:47AM, terry mccann wrote:

Now if you were honest and not just a no mark troll sent here to keep as talking about nothing you would have replied.Well Terry what does the spider symbolise?Spider bestows the power to work magic over people and things. By weaving it gains a certain element of control;Once the prey is wrapped up,this control is complete.That's why she was wearing it Tel.

Is this why spiderman wears spider themed clothing all the time?

FFS was all he said

Whether continuing to be more or less in the EU under another guise is regarded as a 'satisfactory withdrawal agreement' is of course very subjective dave. My guess is that most of those who found it satisfactory were those who lost the referendum.

An unlimited power of prorogation would therefore be incompatible with the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.


No it is not incompatible at all.

No government can pass laws without parliament. No taxes are lawful unless a budget has been passed by parliament. You cannot govern without parliament, so the PM would always have to recall it. And if the parliament was unhappy at having been prorogued, it could bring down the government.

What is incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty is a court making up laws out of thin air.

You appear to have missed that everyone agreed that courts can decide

whether a prerogative power exists, and if it does exist, its extent.

Is the Supreme court independent? Freemasons Silver spider brooch is saying bare faced "this is who we are".
Its not normal to recall Parliament in conference season,right slap bang when the Torys are in Blackpool, the  same Torys who are the only party trying to get us out. A fiendish trap is correct.

Gina Miller with all her money bags has stopped the will of the people.

"They are never going to leave but its entertaining watching them try" who said that last march?

Theodore Bagwell?

Or Brad Bellick?

You appear to have missed that everyone agreed that courts can decide

'whether a prerogative power exists, and if it does exist, its extent.'


The courts do not - until this week - decide the extent of the power. The courts decide whether a law passed by parliament should be used to deal with a case rather than the prerogative power.

In the cases cited in the judgement ( De Keyser's Hotel etc ) the use of prerogative power was deemed unlawful because there was statutory law created by parliament that covered those cases.

There is no example given of a prerogative power being restricted by the courts without it clashing with statutory law.

Here there was no law whatever restricting prorogation.

All 11 are SPIVS  many in the pay of the eu  - check it out - you will be amazed.

Think the tory conference is in Manchester next week terry. Just so anx can pay a visit.

Sep 27, 2019 -- 6:57PM, tobermory wrote:

You appear to have missed that everyone agreed that courts can decide'whether a prerogative power exists, and if it does exist, its extent.'The courts do not - until this week - decide the extent of the power. The courts decide whether a law passed by parliament should be used to deal with a case rather than the prerogative power.In the cases cited in the judgement ( De Keyser's Hotel etc ) the use of prerogative power was deemed unlawful because there was statutory law created by parliament that covered those cases.There is no example given of a prerogative power being restricted by the courts without it clashing with statutory law.Here there was no law whatever restricting prorogation.

Didn't I make that point clear enough?  None of the parties disputed that a court could decide the extent of a prerogative power.  There is no mention of law breaking.  Everyone agreed that the court could decide the extent of a prerogative power.

'courts can decide whether a prerogative power exists, and if it does exist, its extent'


And, for centuries, they have decided this by examining whether the use of prerogative power clashes with laws passed by parliament. Every case cited in the judgement seems to have this in common.

What this judgement does though is say ; 'Here, look at all these cases where the executive used prerogative power and the courts ruled it unlawful. So we can do that in this case too.'

But those cases are all profoundly different as the use of prerogative clashed with parliamentary laws.

With the De Keyser hotel the War Office took the building over in the middle of WWI using prerogative power and were not keen to compensate the owners very much. The legal judgement was that an act of parliament covered such things and so 'once the statute had been enacted the prerogative powers fell into abeyance, for the duration of the life of its provisions should the statute be replaced or amended or modified'

Here there was no statute covering prorogation.

Personally I was not in favour of the prorogation, did not see what good it could accomplish, and would be fine with laws restricting it's use. But it has to be restricted by parliament, or  a written constitution, not on an ad hoc basis by judges.

The main issue is that the reason given for prorogation was not true so therefore he lied to the Queen.

Yeah it was BS but is there a law against lying to the Queen ?