The verdict of the Supreme Court, that Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament, NOT for the purpose of stopping pro EU factions from preventing the UK having a no strings break from the EU as a (long overdue) result of the 2016 referendum, and it’s result which surprised the elites and the citizens of our recently renamed capital city Wankeristan, has divided the country even more deeply than the brexit vote itself.
Answers given to this question posed on Quora.com reveal that above all, the pro EU side, while totally opposed to referenda which do not return the result they want, are quite happy with judges who overreach their judicial authority and usurp the lawmaking powers of parliament to their unelected selves, so long as their verdict is the one Remain supporters want.
What does it say about Boris Johnson when 11 senior judges unanimously call his prorogue unlawful and he still says they are wrong?
What does it say about the judiciary when 11 Supreme Court Justices ignore the law because they are determined to stitch up Boris Johnson. Article 9 of the Bill Of Rights (1689) clearly states that “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;”
The Supreme Court Justices, showing that they are corrupt rather than stupid although they may well be both, chose to pretend they believed proroguation was not part of the normal proceedings of parliament. In fact it is a routine process that must be performed in order that one parliamentary session can be ended and another one begun.
You are incorrect. They determined in this case that no reason was given and no reasonable reason could be given for suspending Parliament for five weeks. They are saying the the PM does not have the right to suspend Parliament for no reason or for a length of time not consistent with the reasoning for the suspension.
If this had not been up held the Government could close Parliament indefinitely. That clearly should not be allowed.
I also notice that you are calling these judges corrupt with any evidence.
I have plenty of evidence that the Supreme Justices are corrupt and repeatedly find in favour of certain interest groups, and that the Supreme Court is a politcal device created by Tony Blair to rule on constutional matters he could never hope to get past parliament, and that its members are not the most senior judges in the land but most of it is not relevant to this question, is far too long to summarise meaningfully in a comment and is being fully covered by online news and commentary sites like Unherd and Spiked.
The point people are missing here is that these court cases need not have happened had the combined opposition parties tabled a no confidence motion and brought down the government or supported one of the governments attempts to call an early election. Instead the opposition decided to put their political interests ahead of the national interest and leave us without an effective government rather than face the prospect of losing an election..
The opposition’s problem is while there is no majority in parliament for Leave means Leave, there is also no majority for Leave With Theresa May’s Deal or Remain, and the as long as parliament will not allow Leave With No Deal, the EU will not agree to renegotiate May’s withdrawal agreement.
Most of the comments on the Quora question above and the Supreme Court ruling on the proroguation of parliament (including my own I have to admit,) went with the respondant’s wider position on Brexit, but it is interesting to note that of the answers from people who claimed legal expertise, none mentioned this rather important fact:
The eleven justices all made a single judgment; there was no dissenting opinion, which is odd considering that equally senior judges including the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Master of the Rolls already made a decision which was precisely the opposite of that of the Supreme Court decided.
Now clearly those Remain supporters who claimed that legally the Supreme Court judges are the most senior legal authorities in the land have far less knowledge of the judicial hierarchy than one would expect from legal professionals. Perhaps the fact that the Supreme Court is not an ancient and venerable institution but a recent politically innovation created at the behest of the traitor and war criminal Tony Blair and packed with New Labour political appointees (probably for the purpose of protecting Blair and his cronies from justice should their war crimes and acts of treason ever be prosecuted,) has something to do with it.
It is widely suggested that the whole of the judiciary has a pro – EU bias, ans the Supreme Court Justices are not the first to allow their political prejuduces to overrule their duty of impartiality.
The judge in the Robin Tilbrook case, in which the plaintiff argued that Theresa May had overreached her authority in agreeing an extension to Article 50 without putting it to parliament and therefore the UK had legally left the EU on March 19, 2019, in the words of Tlbrook’s case, ” wilfully deliberately knowingly and intentionally failed to declare his ‘conflicts of interest'” – which by the way mainstream media failed to inform the people about!
The MSM could not report honestly about the judge’s conflict of interest, because they would then have to explain what the case was about. What scant coverage it was given presented Tilbrook, a legal professional, as an obsessive nutcase driven by hatred of the European Union The Establishment are desperate to suppress any mention of the Tilbrook case, which is why there were been a total news blackout about it. If the Tilbrook case was generally known about, then there would be inexorable public pressure for Robin Tilbrook to at least be given a fair hearing. Any fair, impartial court would almost certainly find in Robin Tilbrook’s favour – and we would immediately be out of the EU. Hence the total news blackout.
Judge LJ Hickinbottom ruled Tilbrook’s claim ‘Totally Without Merit’. Hickinbottom is a Fellow of the European Legal Institute and therefore sworn to promote EU law throughout the ‘Community’ as well as the recipent of many lucrative commissions by virtue of holding that position.
The EU is of course a lawers’ wet dream, the giant bureaucracy produced swathes of new laws every week, most so arcane only an army of lawyers could interptret them in any meaningful way. The practice of Law mis certainly the fastest growing industry in the EU and given the collapse of manufacturing and agriculture due to the burden of bureaucratic law placed on producers might sooon be the largest industry.