Another case heard in the high court of England and Wales deemed the issue “political” and non-justiciable.
This is a seriously important piece of the British constitution. The courts cannot overrule political decision, end of story.
Ms Chakrabati either knows this and is lying, or she doesn't know is completely inappropriate to be a candidate for attorney general.
Her complaint that it "stifled debate" is simply bullshit.
“Once you’ve dealt with that hurdle you go on to decide whether on the facts of this case, Boris Johnson and his chums were abusive. Whether they abused their prerogative power, to suspend parliament, to shut it down in this way.”
Define abuse for me please. What does that mean? How could it ever be abusive to end a session of parliament? The timing might be more or less favorable for the government, but when parliament has sat for the longest time since the Long Parliament (incidentally they only stopped sitting because Cromwell literally expelled them at gun point) ending the session could not possibly be abusive. It had to fucking end sometime, you know? And for someone who is a lawyer to say "that's abusive because it might stop me getting what I want" is fucking disgusting. She should know better. Abuse of process relates to the process, not to the outcome.
As it turns out you insufferable cunts, it is possible for things you don't like to happen legally.
"Andrew Torba, you are a legend, sir. This is incredibly innovative and very important." - Dave Cullen