Prorogation - Supreme Court Verdict: Legal or Illegal

[DaveB]

Agree

This could run for a while then....

Dominic Casciani on Twitter: "IMPORTANT: Government's submission to the Supreme Court tells judges that if they rule against Mr Johnson and quash prorogation of Parliament - he might just go and do it again:… https://t.co/xtyG17xkra"

[NotAllThere]

... legislation is the yardstick by which to judge illegality...

Not just legislation. Each side presents to the judges their arguments, by citing previous judgements and legislation. The judges then decide who is right.

I think the SC should refer to it CUK. We could have a poll to decide.

[jamesbrown]

Not just legislation. Each side presents to the judges their arguments, by citing previous judgements and legislation. The judges then decide who is right.

I think the SC should refer to it CUK. We could have a poll to decide.

But it is the most coherent yardstick. The alternative is that the courts impinge on what Parliament can properly and demonstrably do, which is to legislate to the same effect, against which the SC could then arbitrate w/r to executive behavior. That is the whole point about Parliamentary sovereignty and the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary. Parliament can legislate to prevent prorogation. That they didn't (e.g., as part of the Benn Act) is curious. They did it for the NI Act; at least to restrict its effect. The point is that the SC would be ruling as improper something that Parliament could've expressly legislated as being improper. How does that leave the separation of responsibilities?

The conventional view, as I understand it, is the one offered by the HC, namely that it is not justiciable. However, I don't expect that result. It's also worth noting that the verdict of the Court of Session would need to be ruled as wrong in its own terms, because each court verdict is judged by the SC in its own terms, i.e. against Scottish law in that case - this is another reason I expect the conventional view to be overturned.

[TestMangler]

Yes, thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious.

It's not blindingly obvious to some on here.....

[BrilloPad]

Not just legislation. Each side presents to the judges their arguments, by citing previous judgements and legislation. The judges then decide who is right.

I think the SC should refer to it CUK. We could have a poll to decide.

Which the mods will then rig.

[SimonMac]

This could run for a while then....

Dominic Casciani on Twitter: "IMPORTANT: Government's submission to the Supreme Court tells judges that if they rule against Mr Johnson and quash prorogation of Parliament - he might just go and do it again:… https://t.co/xtyG17xkra"

So it could drag on and then BoJo progues again for the more usual week/two weeks to takes us to the 14th still

[SimonMac]

because legislation is the yardstick by which to judge illegality

I think that is only part of the matter, precedent has been used as well as legislation

[BrilloPad]

So it could drag on and then BoJo progues again for the more usual week/two weeks to takes us to the 14th still

Of course, BoJo might actually try some politics and work with everyone.

Doh! I am being thick again. Carry on.

[NotAllThere]

But it is the most coherent yardstick.

Maybe. But not how British justice works.

Which the mods will then rig.

We're split 50/50, so the casting vote would go to Admin.

[Zigenare]

Maybe. But not how British justice works.

We're split 50/50, so the casting vote would go to Admin.

How many mods are there currently?