Westministenders: Boris Johnson Broke The Law

[RedToothBrush]

ITS OFFICIAL
The Highest Court in the Land has ruled that Boris Johnson has broken the law.

Parliament is Sovereign.

Despite the calls for his resignation it is highly unlikely he will under the current political climate.

It must be stressed that the judgement was UNAMINOUS and went further than most expected, and took the hardest possible line again the government

The power now lies with the Speakers of the Lords and Commons to decide when Parliament reopens.

It also means that all the bills which were ended by proroguation are now back in play.

Expect a full backlash from the hard right attacking the courts are going full on 'enemies of the people'. This will be NASTY

The strength of this ruling does pretty much rule out another proroguation as the courts are liable to throw it out immediately if they try it on again.

Johnson is in New York. He needs to get on a plane very quickly.

Misti you’re being very silly. In universities up and down the country the merits of judicial decisions are debated every day! It’s what lawyers do! We may be right, we may be wrong, but it’s the lifeblood of a common law system - argument.
Good god.

The more blinkered are viewing this through a Leave / Remain prism

The principle of whether a PM is above the law, whether he can prorogue Parliament to force through policies - whether on Brexit or on combs for bald men - is what was at stake

i.e. whether we are ruled by law
and hence whether we are still a (barely) functioning democracy

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the BBC is really pushing hard for a GE in October?

I’ve not read the whole thing I admit. But I have a suspicion they’ve bollocksed this, and permanently damaged their standing

You know you typed that out loud, right?

You reckon that, somehow, you know better than the 11 judges of the Supreme Court...without even having read the whole judgement?

Fuck me. This country.

@MaudBaileysGreenTurban 😂

£5k raised for Shelter already. I have to confess to being tempted.

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223679208508?ul_ref=https%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F710-53481-19255-0%252F1%253Ftype%253D4%2526campid%253D5336802343%2526toolid%253D10001%2526afsrc%253D1%2526customid%253D76202X1526515Xb369124b8d0b62f42ed4a55c5ef2f2ec%2526mpre%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.ebay.co.uk%25252Fitm%25252F223679208508%2526srcrot%253D710-53481-19255-0%2526rvr_id%253D2121321877824%2526rvr_ts%253D6424a17516d0aa492a2466b8fffb13bf&ul_noapp=true

It always prevents parliament conducting business.

For a few days for a clear purpose, not because the sole purpose is to prevent parliament conducting business.

Interesting they are leaking cox leaked it. They need to publish the full legal response and what exactly was asked, because I'm stunned if Geoffrey cox is that incapable. Even a lay person would say let's see the documentation on why so long because this will face a legal challenge.

Cox lacked caution for sure but the problem here is not WHAT he said but how he said it, ie adding the claim that any dissent was politically motivated.

A lower court agreed with Cox, and before the SC case, constitutional lawyers seemed to be about 50:50 on this - so his view that prorogation was lawful wasn't a way-out whacky opinion. His view that dissent was politically motivated is highly problematic though.

It's pretty obvious that he is the chosen sacrificial minister - government is leaking from the top on this occasion.

Sorry about the loooooooog link.

Scuttlebutt on various channels is that various Tory MPs see Cummings as a Rasputin figure who needs throwing in a canal.

(Possibly metaphorically.)

So the referendum in both Northern Ireland and Ireland to accept the Good Friday Agreement was nonsense then BCF?

The referendum on a different voting system, other than FPTP, was a nonsense then? BCF?

The referendum to remain or leave the EU was a nonsense then? BCF?

LloydBraun here in Lincoln’s Inn I have not yet found anyone who thinks the judgment is anything other than a model of clarity and skilful reasoning (N.B. my admittedly anecdotal but well-qualified sample includes a small number known to be on the Leave side of the argument).

In which passages do you find support for your contention that “they’ve bollocksed this”?

All these alleged "real lawyers" popping up, who appear totally blinkered to the significance of 11 Supreme Court Judges unanimously agreeing to probably the most important Constitutional legal decisions to date in British legal history.

Lawyers up and down the country will be reading this and picking holes in it. It’s what we do. Our legal system is based on argument. If you want to stop people doing that, you’re asking for the legal system to stop working. This judgement is not going to stop the legal debate on the issues raised and I’m pretty sure their lordships don’t expect or want it to.

I think they’ve bolloksed it because they’ve handed a great piece of ammunition to those who want to say the judiciary is unduly politicised. I think the outcomes could be very damaging.

Well, I’m a lawyer, so reading court judgements is something I’m used to, and I’ve seen plenty of cases get decided in ways which are wrong

You're either not a lawyer, or you're a very poorly qualified low level high street one, as no lawyer, (and you're either a solicitor or a barrister) would say a judgement is "wrong" like that. You can disagree, debate it, but saying rhe eleven judges were " wrong" isn't something any lawyer, or any worth their salt, would say.

You see this all thr time on here. People post something questionable then try to qualify it because it's so bad by stating made up qualifications.

@placemats
Maybe they have a hole in their programming?

Or maybe their takeover by the Tory party is complete....

The principle of whether a PM is above the law, whether he can prorogue Parliament to force through policies - whether on Brexit or on combs for bald men - is what was at stake

Yes - I really don't believe that people criticising this judgement would be happy for Corbyn to use the same mechanism to enact policy against the will of parliament.

.

^With apols to Larks at Lincoln's
cross posted

Lawyers up and down the country will be reading this

Sure. But you admitted you hadn't read it!

That's not forensic, academic law; that's a hot take on social media by someone with an ego problem.

Sure they will Lloyd

I see, so 11 judges have "bollocksed it"...interesting legal jargon...

The English High Court did not 'agree with the govt." They refused to touch it with a bargepole and sent it straight to the Supreme Court missing out the Appeal Court.

The Scottish Court which found against the govt was senior to the English High Court, analogous to the Appeal Court.

I see, so 11 judges have "bollocksed it"...interesting legal jargon...

Bloody experts, eh?