Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

What I want is:

a) parliament to do its job

b) the judiciary to do its job

As neither of these are doing their job, I want the PM to do whatever is necessary.

In any case, I do not recognise the court's right to make this decision.

On the very day the judiciary did its job and told the PM he isn’t doing his job correctly.

 

 

[HansumFarang]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So somebody is alleged to have given Gina Millar some money.

 

Hiw did that influence the ruling of 11 Supreme Court Judges?

 

 

 

I never suggested that it did.

[bannork]

3 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

What I want is:

a) parliament to do its job

b) the judiciary to do its job

As neither of these are doing their job, I want the PM to do whatever is necessary.

In any case, I do not recognise the court's right to make this decision.

Parliament was stopped from doing its job by Johnson!

Edited September 24, 2019 by bannork

[JamesBlond]

1 minute ago, Slip said:

You are talking utter rubbish.  11 senior judges. Personal motives? Yes they did take the circumstances into account.  The Supreme Court made a decision in law.  They were at pains to point that out.  Your tinfoil hat nonsense matches that of other (some seemingly deluded) posters on this thread. 

So 11 people - who are more likely to have holidays villas in France than the general population - are allowed to undermine to desire of millions with a single, arbitrary decision? This is why the judiciary must stay out of politics.

[HansumFarang]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Why should she. Did she say it should be returned or that it should be public?

 

Quote

Miller CONDEMNED it as undemocratic and the organisation of being secretive

 

If I CONDEMNED a cash donation to myself, I wouldn't then go on to stuff the money in my wallet.

[Slip]

7 minutes ago, bannork said:

Johnson said the progurement of Parliament was to prepare for the Queen's speech. The judges said that normally take 4 days not 5 weeks.

The judges said the period running up to October 31st was a critical time for the nation, and Parliament, wherein the sovereign power of the nation resides, deserves and indeed needs, to be heard.

Of course, but you must realise that both the (tory) speaker, and the highest court of the land are politically biased against the tory government.  Through the looking glass the extremist brexiteers have plunged.

[Slip]

10 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

So 11 people - who are more likely to have holidays villas in France than the general population - are allowed to undermine to desire of millions with a single, arbitrary decision? This is why the judiciary must stay out of politics.

They do stay out of politics.  They deal in law.  Boris needs to learn to stop "breaking" it if he wants to get Farage's way.

EDIT: To cheer up our new member Hansum farang.  Acting unlawfully vs breaking the law is one I will leave for our resident and any new pedants to debate.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Slip

[HansumFarang]

1 minute ago, Slip said:

They do stay out of politics.  They deal in law.  Boris needs to learn to stop breaking it if he wants to get Farage's way.

 

Which law did he break?

[Forethat]

10 minutes ago, bannork said:

Johnson said the progurement of Parliament was to prepare for the Queen's speech. The judges said that normally take 4 days not 5 weeks.

The judges said the period running up to October 31st was a critical time for the nation, and Parliament, wherein the sovereign power of the nation resides, deserves and indeed needs, to be heard.

No they didn't. The judgement: "a typical time is four to six days".

 

The question then is how many days were actually lost due to the recess. Five, by my count.

[Bruntoid]

25 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The fact that Tilbrook was blackballed by the very establishment that lauded her as a poster girl/wall-to-wall MSM coverage an' all that was all the evidence I need that this was a remain endorsed stitch-up.

 

BTW Grouse welcome back ????

Well I would - the welcome back has lost me - please expand ...(though I did a quick search and you’ve said the same thing to another poster, plus someone else to a further poster - is it code?) 

 

quick edit and another search has unveiled your ‘grouse’ - I doubt the mods would appreciate me posting the link here but he is a banned poster very miffed looking at the comments about this website - google it and put your paranoia to rest. There is also a Spidey and another I’ve already forgotten 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Bruntoid

[DannyCarlton]

13 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

What I want is:

a) parliament to do its job

b) the judiciary to do its job

As neither of these are doing their job, I want the PM to do whatever is necessary.

In any case, I do not recognise the court's right to make this decision.

Well, unfortunately for you, you weren't one of the 11 supreme court juges adjudicating on this case. So on this occasion I want doesn't get. Case closed.

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Which law did he break?

Have a look at the case brought forward by the supreme court in Scotland.

The one which the supreme court of the UK ratified. 

He lied to the Queen.

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

No they didn't. The judgement: "a typical time is four to six days".

 

The question then is how many days were actually lost due to the recess. Five, by my count.

Oh its a recess now is it?

[JamesBlond]

2 minutes ago, Slip said:

They do stay out of politics.  They deal in law.  Boris needs to learn to stop breaking it if he wants to get Farage's way.

The judiciary interprets the laws that parliament makes. One court will have a different interpretation than another. There's no black or white. Decisions often go to different courts and get overturned repeatedly. As politics is a nebulous grey area, the courts must not be allowed near it. This court should have declared itself unfit to make a ruling on the issue. Their decision constitutes a far more damaging precedent than the mere prorogation of parliament, which is normal business by comparison. Boris needs to challenge this. 

[DannyCarlton]

Just now, Bruntoid said:

Well I would - the welcome back has lost me - please expand ...(though I did a quick search and you’ve said the same thing to another poster, plus someone else to a further poster - is it code?) 

He says it to all remainers that make posts that he can't counter. (too clever for him by half). It's nothing personal. 555

[Scott]

Troll posts reported and removed.  

[bannork]

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

The judiciary interprets the laws that parliament makes. One court will have a different interpretation than another. There's no black or white. Decisions often go to different courts and get overturned repeatedly. As politics is a nebulous grey area, the courts must not be allowed near it. This court should have declared itself unfit to make a ruling on the issue. Their decision constitutes a far more damaging precedent than the mere prorogation of parliament, which is normal business by comparison. Boris needs to challenge this. 

It is not normal to close Parliament for 5 weeks before a momentous decision such as Brexit.

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

The judiciary interprets the laws that parliament makes. One court will have a different interpretation than another. There's no black or white. Decisions often go to different courts and get overturned repeatedly. As politics is a nebulous grey area, the courts must not be allowed near it. This court should have declared itself unfit to make a ruling on the issue. Their decision constitutes a far more damaging precedent than the mere prorogation of parliament, which is normal business by comparison. Boris needs to challenge this. 

It was 11-0. There is no ambiguity in that.

What you going to do now?

Appeal to the EU courts?

[Slip]

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

No they didn't. The judgement: "a typical time is four to six days".

 

The question then is how many days were actually lost due to the recess. Five, by my count.

You are being dishonest, and you know it.  Firstly, it was not a 'recess' it was a prorogation, and secondly the actual number of days lost due to other events is irrelevant in law. This was a legal matter. This post of yours is spreading false information and should not be allowed to stay.

[HansumFarang]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So somebody is alleged to have given Gina Millar some money.

 

Hiw did that influence the ruling of 11 Supreme Court Judges?

 

 

 

But now you mention it - Gina Miller was one of the parties who brought the case to the Supreme Court. She gets several mentions in their judgement.

 

Quote

JUDGMENT R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)

 

Since she brought the case and her lawyers submitted evidence, yes, those donations may well have made a difference to the ruling. Here's a link to the ruling, since you don't seem to have read it.

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

[Bruntoid]

23 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

And that was when she gave the money back was it?

 

 

Not at all predictable response - it wasn’t hers to return - your spin based theory has been rubbished with facts just accept it 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

It was 11-0. There is no ambiguity in that. 

What you going to do now?

Appeal to the EU courts?

Throwing the same tantrum as with the referendum: We don’t care about laws. We are above the law. 

[HansumFarang]

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

It is not normal to close Parliament for 5 weeks before a momentous decision such as Brexit.

 

Or for the three weeks before a General Election. Ask John Major if you don't believe me.

[JamesBlond]

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

It is not normal to close Parliament for 5 weeks before a momentous decision such as Brexit.

What momentous decision? The decision was already made by the people in the referendum. Boris was simply doing what was necessary to enact it.

[HansumFarang]

1 minute ago, Bruntoid said:

Not at all predictable response - it wasn’t hers to return - your spin based theory has been rubbished with facts just accept it 

 

Just because you use emotive phrases like "your spin based theory has been rubbished with facts just accept it", it doesn't mean that your statement is legitimate or even truthful.

[brewsterbudgen]

What momentous decision? The decision was already made by the people in the referendum. Boris was simply doing what was necessary to enact it.

No one voted to leave without a deal.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

What momentous decision? The decision was already made by the people in the referendum. Boris was simply doing what was necessary to enact it.

Enact what?

Leave with a deal where we stay in the single market as promised by the leave campaign?

[bannork]

5 minutes ago, Forethat said:

No they didn't. The judgement: "a typical time is four to six days".

 

The question then is how many days were actually lost due to the recess. Five, by my count.

As you know recess is not the same as progurement, and why do you say 5 days? With the Brexit deadline looming the annual Party conferences could easily have been curtailed to discuss Brexit in Parliament.

Admit it, Johnson's claim the progurement was to prepare for the Queen's speech was a lie.

He didn't even send a signed witness statement to the court!

What a joke.

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

The judiciary interprets the laws that parliament makes. One court will have a different interpretation than another. There's no black or white. Decisions often go to different courts and get overturned repeatedly. As politics is a nebulous grey area, the courts must not be allowed near it. This court should have declared itself unfit to make a ruling on the issue. Their decision constitutes a far more damaging precedent than the mere prorogation of parliament, which is normal business by comparison. Boris needs to challenge this. 

It wasn't a political matter. It was about the government breaching the constitution of parliament. It's up to the courts to rule on constitutional matters. it wasn't a "mere" proroguation of parliament, it was used for reasons that it was never intended to be used for.

 

Johnson can't challenge the judgment, there is nowhere to appeal to after the supreme court.

 

What he does intend to do is slither round to Buck House and ask for another prorougation.

[Slip]

4 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

He says it to all remainers that make posts that he can't counter. (too clever for him by half). It's nothing personal. 555

Actually, it's a favourite Leaver gambit.  So far I have been accused of being two or three other different posters, and today to my surprise I was told I was not British.  Of course it's all the stuff of tin-foil hats. The poor wee things are flailing around these days as they can't bear that they are in the minority.