Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound
Regardless of the final ruling the judges have already set us on the path to an American style Supreme Court. In future appointments will become highly politicised
Iain Martin @iainmartin1
Yep. Will be intense scrutiny of political views and a new public process for appointments demanded. Perhaps this always was the logic of the creation of the Supreme Court. This speeds it up dramatically.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF
I think you underestimate the importance of unanimity in this case. If it had been a more split verdict then would have opened up all sorts of arguments about politicisation. This suggests a clear legal logic. Also not a ruling on Brexit just role of parliament.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1
I think you underestimate the anger many pro-Brexit voters will feel. We will - I fear - now get into a bitter argument lasting years about the role of the courts and the appointment system. Perhaps was overdue after the Supreme Court was established, but here we go.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF
Why? They have not ruled Brexit illegal. They have said Parliament should be there to discuss it. Is that such a bad thing to ask? Just because you don’t like the verdict doesn’t mean you have to attack the institution. Current state of US SC not argument for pol appointments.
Upandaway @upandaway
This ruling will be very impopular with the sizable share of the UK electorate that subscribe to the ideology that the ends always justify the means. But since there's no arguing with these people anyway, perhaps it's no big loss.
I think its not a good look to be dismissing 'these people' describing it as 'no big loss'. It IS a big deal, and unless there is a fundamental understanding about the importance of the rule of law and how its to all our benefit (the alternative being the idea of the courts being free and fair being something that is destroyed).
The problem here is very much summed up in how the Justice system is currently failing - through cuts - meaning there is very little legal aid where they need it, people are struggling to get legal defence and the courts aren't sitting because the government isn't funding them so even if the police do their jobs, suspects are either free to reoffend whilst waiting for their case or rot for months without trial whilst on remand - none of which is in the best interests of the victim.
The effect being 'justice' is something only for the rich and the poor can not defend themselves against either unfair prosecution or be on an even playing field for being treated equally if they have offended.
Its all these building blocks having been eroded that have substaintially weakened our institutions and ability to function effectively as a liberal democracy.
Its all connected.
Most 'ordinary people' only see their immediate world and the stuff they are up close to rather than the bigger picture and thats part of the problem.
High minded ideals of how the constitution works and how justice works don't mean a lot. Especially when in practice they aren't necessarily getting the benefit of those, because of cuts and the government acting unlawfully (cases like the DWP and the Home Office being found to have acted unlawfully for various reasons spring to mind - these are the cases that reach court - for everyone of those think of all the ones that don't).
Whilst I am extremely pleased at the ruling I am also EXTREMELY worried about the fallout for it too.
Things are THAT fragile.