Prorogation - Supreme Court Verdict: Legal or Illegal Prorogation - Supreme Court Verdict: Legal or Illegal - Page 3

View Poll Results: Prorogation - High Court Verdict: Legal or Illegal.

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Legal

    4 17.39%
  • Illegal

    12 52.17%
  • I'm too busy Proroguing AndyW's mum to care.

    7 30.43%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonMac View Post
    I think that is only part of the matter, precedent has been used as well as legislation
    Er, you mean case law? Precedent is part of common law, which operates w/r to legislation.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAllThere View Post
    Maybe. But not how British justice works.
    Well, we'll find out soon. What about the other stuff, I said? This case is really about the separation of powers and the extent to which, to coin a phrase, there is a backstop to prerogative powers and, if so, what that is and who drafts it (the judiciary if the gov't fails).

  3. #23

    I Am Legend


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    103,774

    Default

    So decision due early next week.

  4. #24

    Super poster

    Whorty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    2,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zigenare View Post
    How many mods are there currently?
    3

    They're split 50/50
    I may not know Karate, but I know crazy and I'm not afraid to use it

  5. #25

    Super poster

    meridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,327

    Default

    I’ll go for “justiciable, but in this case not illegal”.

    Everybody wins.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meridian View Post
    I’ll go for “justiciable, but in this case not illegal”.

    Everybody wins.
    Not likely, IMHO. That would effectively say that the Court of Sessions erred because, unlike the HC, they found it to be justiciable and, therefore, ruled on the substance. They may be wrong about the former, but I cannot see the latter. It's pretty clear that a main purpose was to evade Parliament and not to prepare for a QS. Difficult to see how they were wrong on the substance, and the SC needs to judge that ruling against Scottish law. If the gov't is going to win, I think it can only be on justiciability (i.e., the lack thereof).

  7. #27

    Respect my authoritah!

    NotAllThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Far away from HMRC
    Posts
    21,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    What about the other stuff, I said? .
    Funnily enough, quite cogent. What is happening here is a battle between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. As soon as the SC was created, it was inevitable that sooner or later something like this would happen.

    I'm just stocking up on popcorn.
    Hmm. I'm beginning to suspect that you need to find all the packing the computer came in...

  8. #28

    I live on CUK

    Old Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Tombliboo Bush
    Posts
    22,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    Er, we know the High Court verdict.

    I'd say illegal at the SC, on balance, although it will be interesting to hear their justification because legislation is the yardstick by which to judge illegality (e.g., improper purpose), so what is the made-up yardstick by which to judge political impropriety (noting that Parliament could've legislated against prorogation too, as with the NI Act)?
    If it is illegal, there is no need for parliament to legislate against it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bean
    I admit that I'm a lazy lying cretin, but so what?
    25 June 2018

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Greg View Post
    If it is illegal, there is no need for parliament to legislate against it.
    Yeah, I'm not sure a judicial review triggered by a citizen is the best route for Parliament to achieve something clearly within its own power.

    I mean, suity might take that approach.

    Speaking of which, I saw this earlier and it reminded me of suity...

    Tariq Rauf on Twitter: "I want to be in the meeting where this idea was proposed… "

  10. #30

    I live on CUK

    Old Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Tombliboo Bush
    Posts
    22,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    Yeah, I'm not sure a judicial review triggered by a citizen is the best route for Parliament to achieve something clearly within its own power.

    I mean, suity might take that approach.

    Speaking of which, I saw this earlier and it reminded me of suity...

    Tariq Rauf on Twitter: "I want to be in the meeting where this idea was proposed… "
    This is not being achieved for parliament but for the electorate who are represented by parliament. So perfectly right that a citizen steps in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bean
    I admit that I'm a lazy lying cretin, but so what?
    25 June 2018

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •