Supreme court told PM will ‘abide’ by any ruling but minister declines to say if MPs could be sent away again immediately
3 comments

Welcome to Dissenter

The Comment Section of the Internet
www.theguardian.com
law/2019/sep/17/government-declines-to-rule-out-fresh-prorogation-if-it-loses-case

And yet, last year, as we approached yet another dead-line, MPs gave themselves an extended summer holiday. They didn't seem to have a problem with that.

loading...

Weird fucking stuff here. This is clown world.

To start with; the headline is mental. So, Boris has said he would comply with the courts ruling if they said the prorogation was unlawful. Apparently they then tried to push him to not then lawfully prorogue after that, as if this decision on the constitutional legality of proroguing would make future, unknown prorogation impossible when this is simply impossible.

Second, look at this quote:

"But Lady Hale intervened: “It could be said it was in pursuit of democracy rather than opposed to it. To enforce the will of the House of Commons [to exert its authority over the unelected Lords]...” Keen replied that prorogation on that occasion was an example of a government doing so “where the executive wish to pursue a political objective and they are entitled to do so”."

The judge seems to think that "in pursuit of democracy" changes the legality of proroguing. But that is, at a minimum, a matter of opinion. Keen's response that she should should the fuck and pay attention to the actual case at hand; proroguing as a political tool; instead of ideas like democracy that are vastly outside the courts jurisdiction.

Boris' lawyer said that there was precedent of political prorogugation, and that this should be adhered to. After all, that is the law as it stands. For the court to change that is to, in effect, create new law from whole cloth.

loading...

Why is nobody discussing the damage to democracy done if rich people can forever bully the executive by taking out frivolous court cases to delay and obstruct progress? Is this not equally if not more as worrying as the idea that some day someone might prorogue for a year? Why are there no penalties for those who do this without good reason? Why are there no safeguards from foreign actors funding these cases to deliberately impede government business? What might be the consequences of the government being slowed by being forced by the rich and powerful to abide by the "rule of lawyers"?


Edit History

2019-56-We 03:56:40 pm

Why is nobody discussing the damage to democracy done if rich people can forever bully the executive by taking out frivolous court cases to delay and obstruct progress? Is this not equally if not more as worrying as the idea that some day someone might prorogue for a year? Why are there no penalties for those who do this? Why are there no safeguards from foreign actors funding these cases to deliberately impede government business? What might be the consequences of the government being slowed by being forced by the rich and powerful to abide by the "rule of lawyers"?

loading...
Trending On www.theguardian.com
Trending Comments On www.theguardian.com
What people are saying...

"Andrew Torba, you are a legend, sir. This is incredibly innovative and very important." - Dave Cullen

Dissenter
connecting...