Supreme Court hearing live

[caveman]

............Can be found by going to Parliament Live on Youtube.

 

[Still Farming]

Gina Miller agenda?

 

[czechmate]

Boris Johnson agenda?

 

[caveman]

Can judges make law on the hoof?

 

[rob1]

Gina Miller agenda?

To stop brexit, one woman's wish against 17.4 million

Boris Johnson agenda?

To ensure brexit

 

[Danllan]

Can judges make law on the hoof?

Yes! It's called the Common Law and has been around for nigh on a thousand years.

But... it's only made where there is no clear legislative law on a given issue.

(Are you the same @caveman who was deploring good education in another thread? )

 

[caveman]

Yes! It's called the Common Law and has been around for nigh on a thousand years.

But... it's only made where there is no clear legislative law on a given issue.

(Are you the same @caveman who was deploring good education in another thread? )

Mind your head.
I didn't know that.
Haven't studied law.
So in a democracy, an unelected and therefore unrepresentative body, can just ride roughshod over any action?
I'm guessing I any judgment would require precedence?

 

[Still Farming]

To stop brexit, one woman's wish against 17.4 million


To ensure brexit

Cost a bit , where ,what ,why Gina millers grip??

 

[arcobob]

Cost a bit , where ,what ,why Gina millers grip??

Crowd funding. No, not minnows like the man in the street but the city and usual establishment freaks.

 

[FlyBy]

Crowd funding. No, not minnows like the man in the street but the city and usual establishment freaks.

They raised £207,970 from 7,754 pledges. That's an average donation of just under £27. Not sure it really feeds into your 'city and establishment' narrative very well.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/dont-suspend-parliament/

 

[arcobob]

They raised £207,970 from 7,754 pledges. That's an average donation of just under £27. Not sure it really feeds into your 'city and establishment' narrative very well.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/dont-suspend-parliament/

I did not research it I have to admit so I apologise. Strangely enough she claims not to be anti Brexit but is purely acting to make government accountable but to whom, the majority or the minority ?

 

[arcobob]

Gina Miller probably saved Brexit from May and her cronies due to parliament rejecting her deal but I am not sure that was her motive. More probable that she knew that parliament was pro remain and would not obey the majority decision.

 

[FlyBy]

I did not research it I have to admit so I apologise. Strangely enough she claims not to be anti Brexit but is purely acting to make government accountable but to whom, the majority or the minority ?

The worry for me is that the battle lines over Brexit are allowing government to get away with breaking a lot of conventions that our constitution relies on to effectively function. Because a lot of things aren't explicitly codified in constitutional documents, we rely on people to follow convention. If they start ignoring that, then they can abuse the system in ways people never expected.

I can completely understand (and applaud) someone wanting to force government to follow the rules even if they support the governments aims. Next time it might be a government with aims that you very much don't support.

 

[Highland Mule]

They raised £207,970 from 7,754 pledges. That's an average donation of just under £27. Not sure it really feeds into your 'city and establishment' narrative very well.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/dont-suspend-parliament/

Crikey that's peanuts. Lord Bamford gave more than three times that to the leave campaign - and he was one of the smaller donors there. We are being played by the richest few of our country, that's true, but you can't put that accusation against this recent court case.

 

[Still Farming]

So crowd funding, can it be chased to see who donors are??

 

[rob1]

The worry for me is that the battle lines over Brexit are allowing government to get away with breaking a lot of conventions that our constitution relies on to effectively function. Because a lot of things aren't explicitly codified in constitutional documents, we rely on people to follow convention. If they start ignoring that, then they can abuse the system in ways people never expected.

I can completely understand (and applaud) someone wanting to force government to follow the rules even if they support the governments aims. Next time it might be a government with aims that you very much don't support.

whereas the speaker hasnt broken any or the other day said that the reemainer had to be "creative" to stop brexit, he has behaved appallingly and not just over brexit, but then thats my opinion being a leave supporter, has Boris been any better, possibly not and remainers would say certainly, the difference is I can see that both sides are now playing dirty, remainers are generally totally blind to failings in their side

 

[Danllan]

Mind your head.
I didn't know that.
Haven't studied law.
So in a democracy, an unelected and therefore unrepresentative body, can just ride roughshod over any action?
I'm guessing I any judgment would require precedence?

Fair enough, and I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. But you were mocking grammar school standards in another thread and, genuinely, I'd have thought that the vast majority of people had heard of 'precedent', you've just used the word 'precedence'.

In our democracy we must have an independent Judiciary to ensure that judgements can't be bought, be they between individuals or involving the State.

The Common Law came into being for two main reasons, to ensure that the same justice was applicable everywhere - hence precedent - and to enable justice to be dispensed even when there was no legislation covering a specific matter.

No, Judges can't '...ride roughshod...' over anything, they can create law where nothing applicable exists, but they can't contradict or oppose legislation, they are in fact bound by it. This is fairly strict too, they can't choose to 'construe' a given law as they please, any way they interpret a law must be 'in the spirit' in which Parliament intended it. If Parliament doesn't like a given judgement, it can simple produce new legislation to make it wishes the law that the Courts must apply.

Any judgement made by the Supreme Court sets a precedent, and all inferior Courts are bound by it; and this is reflected further down, as a Court of Appeal judgement bind the High Court and the High Court binds the Crown and County Courts. But a judgement at one level does not bind other Courts at the same level.

 

[caveman]

Fair enough, and I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. But you were mocking grammar school standards in another thread and, genuinely, I'd have thought that the vast majority of people had heard of 'precedent', you've just used the word 'precedence'.

In our democracy we must have an independent Judiciary to ensure that judgements can't be bought, be they between individuals or involving the State.

The Common Law came into being for two main reasons, to ensure that the same justice was applicable everywhere - hence precedent - and to enable justice to be dispensed even when there was no legislation covering a specific matter.

No, Judges can't '...ride roughshod...' over anything, they can create law where nothing applicable exists, but they can't contradict or oppose legislation, they are in fact bound by it. This is fairly strict too, they can't choose to 'construe' a given law as they please, any way they interpret a law must be 'in the spirit' in which Parliament intended it. If Parliament doesn't like a given judgement, it can simple produce new legislation to make it wishes the law that the Courts must apply.

Any judgement made by the Supreme Court sets a precedent, and all inferior Courts are bound by it; and this is reflected further down, as a Court of Appeal judgement bind the High Court and the High Court binds the Crown and County Courts. But a judgement at one level does not bind other Courts at the same level.

1. You haven't hurt my feelings.
2. I did wonder over precedent and precedence, but picked the wrong one.Lesson learnt.
3. Was not mocking grammer education. Merely pulling mateys chain.
4. I sort of understood precedent hierarchy already.
5. I was more trying to understand that precedent must have a "pidigree" and wondered on the "Adam and Eve" of such.
6. Was wondering if the historic prorogue events quoted by Boris's solicitor yesterday afternoon had been challenged or not and do they set precedent one way or the other.........guessing those events will show the way?

 

[DrWazzock]

At the end of the day it will be a matter of opinion swayed by all sorts of prejudices and allegiances. It won't suddenly and magically become clear like a commandment from on high. We have already had two opposing judgements so what makes anybody think the third one will be "right"?
This is why military dictatorships take hold and get things done.
People are losing faith in the law at about the same rate as they are losing faith in parliamentary democracy. Both are being used for self serving political purposes. Nothing to do with justice or democracy.

 

[Agrivator]

If the majority of MPs in a Parliament (with the encouragement of an out-of-control speaker) are intent on overruling the solemn will of the people, despite previously promising to honour their wishes, it is the responsibility of the Executive (Boris and his Cabinet) to do everything in its power to wrest back control from a dishonest faction and to ensure the maintenance of democracy.

That is the argument I would put before the Supreme Court if I had the opportunity so to do.