Not really

Very crude summary is that they looked likely to take the law in a new direction, whereby prerogative acts are amenable to JR even though they had a political purpose if the court feels that that political purpose was an improper one. (Orthodoxy was that courts would stay out of politics, leaving them to be decided by political means.) I don’t regard that as a good thing because it’s a huge “separation of powers” issue, to my mind.

My main worry is that the logic of this will lead us to US style “confirmation” hearings, on the basis that if judges are going to decide which political decisions they regard as improper and which they do not, there is suddenly a reasonable basis for arguing that their political views should be known and examined before they are appointed. I would be hugely sad about any such development.

Posted By: Old Git on September 24th 2019 at 09:23:48

Message Thread

Supreme Court predictions (General Chat) - SCC 28, Sep 24, 08:01:04
- Mood music of that hearing was terrible, would be very surprised if govt hadn’t lost (n/m) (General Chat) - Old Git, Sep 24, 09:02:11
  - That said, I'm not sure after Conference yesterday Labour now want Parliament restarted. (n/m) (General Chat) - DrDublin, Sep 24, 09:50:51
  - maybe lose on the law (General Chat) - paulg, Sep 24, 09:35:55
  - Oh, I wouldnt be so sure (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 24, 09:06:44
  - 👍 (n/m) (General Chat) - SCC 28, Sep 24, 09:06:31
- The word in the legal world is that the Gov will lose. (n/m) (General Chat) - MORDENCANARY, Sep 24, 08:56:14
  - Old Git and his associates thought otherwise (General Chat) - SCC 28, Sep 24, 08:58:24
    - Before the hearing I definitely expected the Divisional Court to be upheld (General Chat) - Old Git, Sep 24, 09:08:08
      - What about the substance of it? (General Chat) - Tricky Hawes, Sep 24, 09:14:08
        
        Not really (General Chat) - Old Git, Sep 24, 09:23:48
        
        Yeah, it seems to have opened up a can of worms whichever way it goes (General Chat) - duke of york, Sep 24, 09:30:41
        
        Keep in mind with parliament suspended. Government cannot pass through legislation (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:36:05
        
        *I mean rule against them in the second par, obvs (n/m) (General Chat) - duke of york, Sep 24, 09:31:09
        
        Joe Rogan? (n/m) (General Chat) - protheroe fitzgibbon, Sep 24, 09:25:53
    - Always dangerous to try and second guess judges but the vibe from the bits of the hearing (General Chat) - Jim, Sep 24, 09:03:23
    - If Boris decides to shut down Parliament again put in in the tower. (n/m) (General Chat) - MORDENCANARY, Sep 24, 09:02:58
- 8-3 against the Gov (General Chat) - NorthByNorthWalsham, Sep 24, 08:35:25
- Unanimous with the government. (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 08:03:27
  - Let's say that you're wrong and the decision goes against the Gov (General Chat) - NorthByNorthWalsham, Sep 24, 08:42:52
    - It's kind of difficult to accept when no law has been broken. (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:29:18
      - "no law has been broken" (General Chat) - NorthByNorthWalsham, Sep 24, 09:38:39
        
        Nor have the opposition pointed to an actual law that the PM has broken (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:42:12
        
        You haven't actually answered my original question (General Chat) - NorthByNorthWalsham, Sep 24, 09:46:00
        
        It depends on the wording. (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:56:18
        
        I see...but there's still 'no legal argument'?? (n/m) (General Chat) - NorthByNorthWalsham, Sep 24, 09:58:05
        
        Well no, (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 10:03:09
        
        They haven't decided whether it is justicable yet. (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:40:45
    - I think the biggest issue the government has/had is that courts/judges will ultimately try (General Chat) - Jim, Sep 24, 09:08:38
      - They have the option to vote down the queens speech, essentially a no confidence vote... (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:31:22
        
        The point though really is what an unscrupulous PM *could* do in the future (General Chat) - Jim, Sep 24, 09:46:39
        
        Well maybe we should have some legislation to prevent that. (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:58:24
  - Muppet (n/m) (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 24, 08:18:42
    - Point to me the law that's been broken and ill side with you. (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:29:55
      - Wait til 10.30 eh? (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 24, 09:48:18
        
        You do when the opposition fails at debate and results to protesting (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:51:00
        
        Muppet (n/m) (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 24, 10:06:38
        
        Again, i could call you the same and worse but you just prove my point. (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 10:21:06
    - Seconded (n/m) (General Chat) - NorthByNorthWalsham, Sep 24, 08:40:13
      - Same as above. (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 09:30:05
  - It’s taken until Tuesday for an 11-0? (n/m) (General Chat) - SCC 28, Sep 24, 08:05:52
    - Wouldn't surprise me. It is rare to have a decision rushed through this quickly anyway (n/m) (General Chat) - KetteringRyu, Sep 24, 08:11:16

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.