Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 Sep 19 09:35
Joined:
Date Joined: 06 Jul 10
| Topic/replies: 19,069 | Blogger: ----you-have-to-laugh---'s blog
...


https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 178
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 09:38
Also on Sky News and BBC News for now ......
By:
geordie1956
When: 17 Sep 19 09:40
Open justice so good to see it on TV
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 17 Sep 19 09:42
i guess bbc and sky news will get bored of technical speeces

thought it worth putting up link in case anybody wants to see whats happening between races!
By:
politicspunter
When: 17 Sep 19 09:43
Have the supreme court judges have got their black caps handy for dealing with Boris.
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 09:43
Do you think it will get as lively as PMQ's Angry
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 17 Sep 19 09:43
speeches
By:
edy
When: 17 Sep 19 09:51
Will The Incredible Hulk make an appearance?
By:
lfc1971
When: 17 Sep 19 09:56
Waste of time
By:
geordie1956
When: 17 Sep 19 09:57
The Incredible Sulk more like Whoops
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 09:59
Also available on YouTube 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mvkbgw2p38
By:
edy
When: 17 Sep 19 10:03

Sep 17, 2019 -- 4:56AM, lfc1971 wrote:


Waste of time


Yeah, Judge Rinder is more entertaining than this.

By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 10:07
An administrative fiasco Sad
By:
Quincy
When: 17 Sep 19 10:08
Has anyone got a bag of washers to pay this lot.SadSad
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 17 Sep 19 10:10
never a good start when the office junior is on their phone and misses
a page out of the submission.

still, its better to find out now, than when the judges are deciding..
By:
edy
When: 17 Sep 19 10:28
What time is the verdict expected?
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 10:28
When do they take a gin break Confused
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 10:31
Lord Sumption on Newsnight last night expected that it was likely that today would be fully occupied with the submission of arguments.
A verdict would not be given until likely Thursday or Friday, a fuller disclosure becoming available early next week.
By:
edy
When: 17 Sep 19 10:43
Oh ok, thanks. I had been under the impression that a verdict would be announced today.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 17 Sep 19 10:45
only get a verdict today if they kick it out.

not sure pannick is making much of a case here?
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 10:47
He's pacing himself Wink
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 10:49
Surely it's the documents submitted to the court from inside No. 10 that make the case. These were heavily referenced within the ruling of the Scottish Court.
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 10:54
Lord Jonathon Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, appeared on Newsnight last night.
Emily Maitlis interviewed him, asking a series of questions on two main topics.

Those topics were the ongoing court cases that were raised to challenge the legality of the proroguing of parliament, and the robustness of the Benn Bill.

Proroguing of Parliament
Q. Would it be odd for you if Scotland and the Supreme court weren’t on the same page?

A. The law is exactly the same in both Scotland and England, there may be a difference of opinion between the Scottish courts and the English courts as to what it is but we’ve had the same parliament and the same monarch for 300 years and there cant be a difference , a different law in Scotland and in England about what the relations between them are.

Q. How do you explain the divergence of outcomes?

A. One of the two courts is wrong.

Q. Which one do you think it is?

A. Well, I’m not going to be dogmatic about this, the situation is too novel.
My own view is the orthodox opinion is the one given by the English courts, but one has to accept that if you behave outrageously and defy the political culture on which our constitution depends , a lot of judges are going to be tempted to push the limits out, and the problem is that Boris Johnson has taken a hammer and sickle to our political culture in a way that is profoundly provocative to people who believe that there ought to be solutions consistent with our traditions.

He went on to say:

The essential issue is whether there are any legal standards by which you can distinguish between good political reasons for proroguing parliament and bad political reasons for proroguing parliament. If it’s all politics, it’s hard to see how the courts can decide between the two without taking an essentially political view. But we are in an extraordinarily unusual situation and undoubtedly government has behaved disgracefully and that is a situation which is going to be very difficult to predict what happens.

Q. So, you would accept then the judiciary does have to become, to a degree, politicised?

A. No, I wouldn’t, I think if they’re wise, they’ll take the same view as the divisional court did in the High Court in England. But if the government loses, in a sense, it will serve them right, but serve you right is not really a very good juridical principle.

Benn Bill
Sumption stated that "It’s  a very tightly drafted act, it’s obviously been professionally drafted and the courts interpret legislation so as to give effect to its obvious purpose unless there is something in the language that makes that absolutely impossible."

Q. Do judges look for loopholes?

A. No, they look for ways of closing loopholes, they look for ways of saying that the purpose of the act is actually achieved.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 17 Sep 19 10:55
they were part of the basis for the scottish ruling, and pannick seems to be trying
to make a case that that should be considered here, but not really finding
a direct reason why they should be, as there aint any as far as he knows.

but none to say they should not be either, so hes asking for new law to be made
or for supteme court to recognise that the law exists but has not yet been codified.


i think Silly
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 10:59
Will be interesting to compare and contrast his efforts with those of the Cherry case submission.
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 11:23
Joanna Cherry, the SNP MP who led the legal challenge against prorogation at the Scottish court of session, told BBC Radio Scotland this morning that she was “cautiously optimistic” about winning at the supreme court. She said:

"I’m cautiously optimistic that [the Scottish ruling] will stand.

I think that Scotland’s supreme court reached the right decision here for the right reasons and I’m cautiously optimistic that at least a majority of the UK supreme court justices will follow.

I think Scotland does have a unique constitutional tradition but I think the way in which Scotland’s supreme court decided this case could easily be followed by the UK supreme court and I think the heart of the matter was set out very well by Lord Drummond Young in Scotland when he said it’s not the job of the courts to subject government to political scrutiny, that’s the job of parliament, but where government prevents parliament from doing that job of scrutiny, the courts can step in to make sure that parliamentary democracy is restored.

I think that’s the heart of the Scottish judgment and I think that sets out the constitutional position as it should be and as I believe it is across the UK and that’s why I’m cautiously optimistic that the UK judges will follow the Scottish courts."
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 12:05
Adjourn for lunch .....
By:
lfc1971
When: 17 Sep 19 12:48
It matters not what the reasons for prorogue were

As long as it was legal to prorogue when boris prorogued , and it was

That’s all there is to it , they’ll get there eventually
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 13:52
The Supreme Court has just asked one of the prime minister’s lawyers for clearer written undertaking about how he would abide with a decision against him.

Lord Kerr - one of the longest-serving justices, began interrogating the Advocate General Lord Keen (the PM’s top lawyer in Scotland) about the consequences of losing.

Lord Keen replies: "The consequence could be that he goes to the Queen and seeks the recall of Parliament.”

That doesn’t satisfy Supreme Court justice Lord Kerr who then asks: "Would he prorogue Parliament again?”

Lord Keen, for the PM, replies: "I won't comment on that.”

Lord Carnwath, another of the justices, then says it would be “helpful” to have clearer written undertakings.
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 13:52
Lord Keen starts to give "clear examples" of where the government has prorogued Parliament for political reasons in the past - and sometimes for an extended period of time than usual.

He mentions the prorogation of Parliament in 1914, at the outbreak of the World War One.

"That clearly was not for the purpose of the King's Speech," he says.

He adds: "Parliament was prorogued for 87 days in 1930 during the onset of the Great Depression."

Lord Keen gives another example of 1948, when Parliament was prorogued to force a bill to be passed.

"This last example was clearly for a party political purpose," he says. "It was a naked political reason."
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 13:53
So, he might prorogue again and he may have prorogued for naked political reasons Shocked
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 13:56
This defence lawyer is doing a great job for the prosecution Happy
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 14:25
Rather curiously, Lord Keen, for the government, couldn't answer the question from one of the justices, Lord Hodge, about how the government can comply with regular NI reports to Parliament if it has been forcibly closed. He says he’ll come back on that later.
By:
differentdrum
When: 17 Sep 19 14:54
To the layman and that's 99.99% of people it is blatantly obvious that the extended prorogation had nothing to do with a Queen's Speech.

You can work that out in a few seconds yet this palaver is likely to drag for several days. It is a complete nonsense.

How is it going to look if they come up with a verdict of 'this is nothing to do with us'? This is just as much a trial of the judges as it is of Johnson. A technicality will just make them look foolish.
By:
Angoose
When: 17 Sep 19 15:04
But that's exactly what Lord Sumption believes they should come back and say Cry

As you say, it is blatantly obvious that they have taken advantage of the conference season.

Lord Keen has argued that it is perfectly valid to prorogue for naked political reasons.
In that case, why couldn't Boris just state that openly, rather than hide behind a paper thin argument?
By:
themover
When: 17 Sep 19 15:05
Wasn't 3 years long enough to debate Brexit Confused
By:
lfc1971
When: 17 Sep 19 15:09
Most laymen abd indeed some judges are too stupid to realise the dangers involved if there is a guilty verdict

It’s subtle and you have only to read the comments here to realise that most people can’t grasp why
By:
geordie1956
When: 17 Sep 19 15:11
Boris is toast ... lied to Parliament; and as Brexiteers have said MPs represent the people so by default he has lied to us .. i am angry Tongue Out also he has possibly lied to Her Majesty 
Well done Lord Keen ... will he now be the next to resign Devil
By:
edy
When: 17 Sep 19 15:11
What are the dangers involved if there is a guilty verdict?
By:
jollyswagman
When: 17 Sep 19 15:12
Laugh

your legal knowledge is unmatched on the forum lfc, who would deny that?
Page 1 of 5  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com