Betfair Community

Home › Chit Chat Forum › "Supreme" Court created by Tony Blair?

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Chit Chat

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

"Supreme" Court created by Tony Blair?

trilby22

25 Sep 19 11:30

Joined:

Date Joined: 21 Aug 10

| Topic/replies: 28,009 | Blogger: trilby22's blog

Is that correct or just hearsay? Does he have leverage with it? Do we know how many of the eleven judges are remainers?

Supreme Court captures Tories in fiendish trap

https://leave.eu/36485-2/

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 1 of 2 • Previous 1 | 2 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 50

By:

northanlite When: 25 Sep 19 11:57

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.

By:

Ramruma When: 25 Sep 19 12:03

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.

By:

dave1357 When: 25 Sep 19 12:14

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 ****.

By:

Baphornet When: 25 Sep 19 12:53

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

By:

northanlite When: 25 Sep 19 13:01

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

By:

Baphornet When: 25 Sep 19 13:04

read paragraph 50

By:

northanlite When: 25 Sep 19 13:08

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

By:

dave1357 When: 25 Sep 19 13:08

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

By:

Baphornet When: 25 Sep 19 13:11

oh really?

By:

tobermory When: 25 Sep 19 22:17

They made up a law against prorogation.

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

By:

trilby22 When: 25 Sep 19 22:24

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

By:

dave1357 When: 26 Sep 19 19:27

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?

By:

moisok When: 26 Sep 19 19:38

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

By:

trilby22 When: 26 Sep 19 20:37

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

Why would remainers think that?

By:

A_T When: 26 Sep 19 20:42

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

By:

tobermory When: 26 Sep 19 22:12

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.

By:

Ibrahima Sonko When: 26 Sep 19 22:14

Most sane people know that tobes.

By:

dave1357 When: 26 Sep 19 23:05

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)

.

By:

tobermory When: 27 Sep 19 00:20

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.

By:

impossible123 When: 27 Sep 19 08:07

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:

dave1357 When: 27 Sep 19 08:44

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

another democracy hater

By:

dave1357 When: 27 Sep 19 08:58

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.

By:

terry mccann When: 27 Sep 19 09:04

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

By:

terry mccann When: 27 Sep 19 09:04

^wearing

By:

saddo When: 27 Sep 19 09:15

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.

By:

dave1357 When: 27 Sep 19 09:23

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?

By:

terry mccann When: 27 Sep 19 09:23

The brooch dave

By:

dave1357 When: 27 Sep 19 09:24

terry, stop embarrassing yourself

By:

saddo When: 27 Sep 19 09:42

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.

By:

terry mccann When: 27 Sep 19 09:47

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.

By:

terry mccann When: 27 Sep 19 09:48

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

By:

dave1357 When: 27 Sep 19 09:53

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

By:

dave1357 When: 27 Sep 19 09:56

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"?

By:

detraveller When: 27 Sep 19 10:02

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?

By:

terry mccann When: 27 Sep 19 10:22

FFS was all he said

By:

saddo When: 27 Sep 19 11:18

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.

By:

tobermory When: 27 Sep 19 17:25

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.

By:

dave1357 When: 27 Sep 19 17:43

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

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

By:

terry mccann When: 27 Sep 19 18:28

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.