O/T Democracy

[KerrAvon]

I know how the judicial system works so I do not need lecturing from you and as far as I know the law is the law, but the point I am making is how can 3 high court judges be wrong? Are you suggesting that they do not know the law and therefore are not fit for purpose?

Also the Scottish judicial system works in a different way than the English system works so in theory they could be both right! But if they return a vote against Boris it will look like the courts are deliberately moving in on political matters to either trespass on future rulings or to inhibit Brext or even both.

If you think that the Supreme Court would tailor its decision so as to avoid embarrassment to the High Court then you don’t understand the judicial system.

The English High Court can be wrong because they are human beings and because the issue before the court is a novel one. It is not one upon which the courts have been asked to rule on before. The courts are breaking new ground.

Scottish law is different to English law, but the matter before both the Court of Sessions and the High Court was upon an issue of UK constitutional law, not of Scottish or English law. So why isn’t your argument that the Supreme Court has to agree with the Court of Sessions to avoid making the Scottish judges look unfit for purpose?

I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the Supreme Court delivers a spilt decision, in which case are you saying the majority would be asserting that the minority are unfit for purpose?

The Supreme Court has tried to guard against the potential consequence of a split decision by sitting with 11 judges (from 12 possibles), but, unfortunately, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The courts have no jurisdiction over what is a political decision;
2. The courts have jurisdiction, but do not consider the decision of the government to have been unlawful; and
3. The courts have jurisdiction and consider the actions of the government to have been unlawful.

Bearing that in mind, the fun would really start if the court were to split 4:4:3 or in another inconclusive configuration.

[Exiletyke]

If you think that the Supreme Court would tailor its decision so as to avoid embarrassment to the High Court then you don’t understand the judicial system.

The English High Court can be wrong because they are human beings and because the issue before the court is a novel one. It is not one upon which the courts have been asked to rule on before. The courts are breaking new ground.

Scottish law is different to English law, but the matter before both the Court of Sessions and the High Court was upon an issue of UK constitutional law, not of Scottish or English law. So why isn’t your argument that the Supreme Court has to agree with the Court of Sessions to avoid making the Scottish judges look unfit for purpose?

I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the Supreme Court delivers a spilt decision, in which case are you saying the majority would be asserting that the minority are unfit for purpose?

The Supreme Court has tried to guard against the potential consequence of a split decision by sitting with 11 judges (from 12 possibles), but, unfortunately, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The courts have no jurisdiction over what is a political decision;
2. The courts have jurisdiction, but do not consider the decision of the government to have been unlawful; and
3. The courts have jurisdiction and consider the actions of the government to have been unlawful.

Bearing that in mind, the fun would really start if the court were to split 4:4:3 or in another inconclusive configuration.

The English High Court can be wrong because they are human beings [steps back in amazement]
So I assume the Supreme Court can't be wrong [ are they not human beings?]
And as for your ridiculous assertion that they may have some cynisism of their own doesn't sit well with them making their decision based on.......... exactly what?

[BigLadonOS]

If you think that the Supreme Court would tailor its decision so as to avoid embarrassment to the High Court then you don’t understand the judicial system.

The English High Court can be wrong because they are human beings and because the issue before the court is a novel one. It is not one upon which the courts have been asked to rule on before. The courts are breaking new ground.

Scottish law is different to English law, but the matter before both the Court of Sessions and the High Court was upon an issue of UK constitutional law, not of Scottish or English law. So why isn’t your argument that the Supreme Court has to agree with the Court of Sessions to avoid making the Scottish judges look unfit for purpose?

I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the Supreme Court delivers a spilt decision, in which case are you saying the majority would be asserting that the minority are unfit for purpose?

The Supreme Court has tried to guard against the potential consequence of a split decision by sitting with 11 judges (from 12 possibles), but, unfortunately, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The courts have no jurisdiction over what is a political decision;
2. The courts have jurisdiction, but do not consider the decision of the government to have been unlawful; and
3. The courts have jurisdiction and consider the actions of the government to have been unlawful.

Bearing that in mind, the fun would really start if the court were to split 4:4:3 or in another inconclusive configuration.

If you think that the Supreme Court would tailor its decision so as to avoid embarrassment to the High Court?

Where did I say that? I said that if 3 of the highest judges England or to be told that they are wrong then that implies that they do not know the law. As far as I know the law is the law and if the law says that the courts cannot get involved with political issues then surely that means they cannot get involved with political issues. If the Supreme court rules against Boris then they are clearly in breach of the law and are deliberately doing it for other reasons.

[BigLadonOS]

What gets me is how anyone can guess what Boris was thinking? How the **** do you make a judgement on how you think a person was thinking and then take them to court on guesswork? Totally ****ing stupid.

[great_fire]

What gets me is how anyone can guess what Boris was thinking? How the **** do you make a judgement on how you think a person was thinking and then take them to court on guesswork? Totally ****ing stupid.

The law already works that way on "hate crimes".

[BigLadonOS]

The law already works that way on "hate crimes".

Don't be so stupid. It uses evidence given for and against a person and then makes a judgement. No judge would ever let a case go to court if the only evidence the prosecution had was they thought he was going to do something. It would rightly be scrapped before it got that far.

[Exiletyke]

Don't be so stupid. It uses evidence given for and against a person and then makes a judgement. No judge would ever let a case go to court if the only evidence the prosecution had was they thought he was going to do something. It would rightly be scrapped before it got that far.

News to me that it's a judge who decides if cases go to court
Isn't it the CPS?

[BigLadonOS]

News to me that it's a judge who decides if cases go to court
Isn't it the CPS?

No that is not the way it works so once again I guess I am going to educate you and enlighten you to even greater knowledge. The CPS gather the info and decide if they think they have enough evidence to take it to the courts. With very little evidence can be provided it will go to a preliminary hearing, where a judge decides if there is enough evidence to proceed and at that point with the only evidence the prosecutor can provide (which I sad above) is that they think he might have been thinking of doing something it would be thrown out before it got to being a court case.

Consider yourself better educated mate

[Exiletyke]

What gets me is how anyone can guess what Boris was thinking? How the **** do you make a judgement on how you think a person was thinking and then take them to court on guesswork? Totally ****ing stupid.

How on earth can anyone guess what Boris was thinking when it's odds on even he doesn't know

[KerrAvon]

What gets me is how anyone can guess what Boris was thinking? How the **** do you make a judgement on how you think a person was thinking and then take them to court on guesswork? Totally ****ing stupid.

We can’t be sure what Boris was thinking, because he has failed to provide evidence to the court. A cynic might well say that he has done that to avoid being prosecuted for perjury should evidence of an inconsistent explanation for his actions emerge in the future. That lack of evidence will undoubtedly be noted by the court who might well draw their own cynical conclusions from it

The government isn’t really arguing the case upon the basis of the reason for the proroguing; the thrust of their case is that the courts have no jurisdiction on the matter.