The Supreme Court Party

Discussion in 'Politics & The Economy' started by Jezza99, Jul 26, 2017.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    Did anyone here vote for the Supreme Court in the last General Election? Or in any election? Is it me, or is the tail wagging the dog here?

    How is it that laws passed by our democratically elected representatives can be overturned by a bunch of unelected liberal elite judges? Surely these people are making political decisions under the guise of legal judgements, decisions which they are not entitled to make? What is the point of any government passing legislation, voted on my parliament, if a dozen out of touch, unelected judges can just strike it down if they don't like it?

    Employment tribunal fees unlawful, Supreme Court rules - BBC News
     
  2. rustybin

    rustybin
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,267
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +7,367
    I've emailed them to ask them to reverse Brexit.
     
  3. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    :laugh:

    Well to be fair, they did try their hardest with the A50 ruling. No doubt Gina will be returning to them some time down the line, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they found a way of stopping it.
     
  4. rancidpunk

    rancidpunk
    In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,874
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,964
    Can't disagree with their decision on this. Something is needed to keep Government in check at times.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  5. krish

    krish
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    36,449
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Astral Crescent, Zoovroozlechester, Betelgeuse V
    Ratings:
    +17,354
    It's just the Law Lords re-branded and Parliament still has sovereignty over it.

    It's the unelected House of Lords you should be more concerned about.
     
  6. Greg Hook

    Greg Hook
    Moderator & Reviewer

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    24,549
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    In a secret location with Jennifer Lawrence
    Ratings:
    +11,946
    Agree. Whilst they are democratically elected, apart from voting for someone else at the next election, you are pretty much stuck with what they fancy doing on their own. We need a 'supreme court' to keep them in check.

    The introduction of the employment law tribunal fees was one of the most stupid changes of recent years. Hopefully this decision will help to abolish it.
     
  7. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    Yes but that's kind off the point. Perhaps it was stupid, Governments do a lot of things which people disagree with, but they are democratically elected to do those things.

    If we have these dozen or so unelected people who can just strike down legislation which has been approved by both houses of parliament, then what is the point of parliament? Why are these unelected people more powerful that the 650 people we elect? Why do we not just submit all proposed legislation to the Supreme Court to gain their approval first?

    I find the power they wield, and their total lack of accountability very disturbing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  8. krish

    krish
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    36,449
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Astral Crescent, Zoovroozlechester, Betelgeuse V
    Ratings:
    +17,354
    Err they can't "strike down legislation which has been approved by both houses of parliament" and that upper house is unelected too.

    Employment tribunal fees were never legislated on in Parliament, they were part of a secondary order of the Lord Chancellor not the primary Parliamentary act. Furthermore Parliament's elected Justice select committee had already made similar recommendations in its report last year.

    As I already posted, Parliament still has sovereignty over it.
     
  9. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    Errr....they can. And do.

    Joint enterprise law wrongly interpreted for 30 years, Supreme Court rules - BBC News
     
  10. krish

    krish
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    36,449
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Astral Crescent, Zoovroozlechester, Betelgeuse V
    Ratings:
    +17,354
    Err ... that's not striking down legislation
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  11. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    It is in all but name. It's an instruction on interpreting a piece of legislation in a different way than parliament intended. And which everyone had been happy with for the last 30 years. Where do these plumped up demagogues get off?
     
  12. krish

    krish
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    36,449
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Astral Crescent, Zoovroozlechester, Betelgeuse V
    Ratings:
    +17,354
    No it isn't, not in anyway whatsoever.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  13. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    Well, let's agree to disagree on it then.

    I think with the appointment of the odious Lady Hale recently, it's clear how the Supreme Court rolls.
     
  14. krish

    krish
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    36,449
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Astral Crescent, Zoovroozlechester, Betelgeuse V
    Ratings:
    +17,354
    'Odious'. Here we go again.
     
  15. Toko Black

    Toko Black
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,682
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,750
    No, for the last 30 years, it was an interpretation of a piece of legislation as applied to actual cases, just as now it is a reviewed interpretation of a piece of legislation as applied to actual cases.

    Legislation is not written to cover every conceivable circumstance in exact detail, since that would require a law that is pre-cognitive and accounts for every possible nuance and situation the could occur, which is impossible.
     
  16. tapzilla2k

    tapzilla2k
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    7,621
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +2,844
    Some light reading for you - A. V. Dicey: Law of the Constitution

    Again see above.

    The Constitution rules all. Even the Crown.
     
  17. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    Not Lady Hales though.
     
  18. tapzilla2k

    tapzilla2k
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    7,621
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +2,844
    Lady Hale can be overruled by Parliament and she operates under the auspices of the Constitution and the rule of law. The only person who is above the law most of the time is the Monarch depending on what the Constitution and Parliament says.
     
  19. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    I think you'll find that Lady Hale IS the law.;)

    EU referendum was 'not legally binding' says Supreme Court judge hearing Brexit legal challenge appeal

    Supreme court judge hints at legal hitch that could seriously delay Brexit
     
  20. IronGiant

    IronGiant
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    67,141
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    .
    Ratings:
    +47,640
  21. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    Not for the want of trying.
     
  22. IronGiant

    IronGiant
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    67,141
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    .
    Ratings:
    +47,640
    As my edit suggests, all a bit tumbleweed.

    Have either of those links borne fruit?
     
  23. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    They demonstrate attitude and intent. Lady H and her remain cronies in the Supreme Court have not given up on blocking Brexit, they will be back for more, guarantee it.
     
  24. IronGiant

    IronGiant
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    67,141
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    .
    Ratings:
    +47,640
    Bring it on, I'm all in favour of a Brexit that is best for everyone not just those of us who voted for it.
     
  25. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    But if they get their way, there will be no Brexit.
     
  26. IronGiant

    IronGiant
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    67,141
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    .
    Ratings:
    +47,640
    They haven't managed it yet, so maybe the Constitution is more robust than you think?
     
  27. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    There are a lot of very powerful. wealthy figures behind the campaign fronted by Gina. I hope you are right, but as we have seen, these people never give up on subverting democracy if it's in their interests to do so.
     
  28. Toko Black

    Toko Black
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,682
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,750
    You seem to be missing a very significant and important point about UK laws, our legal and our political system.

    It is hardly ever the case that you can simply decide to change a rule or a law and it doesn't effect or is effected by other rules and laws.
    If there was a historic law about having to work a 40hr week and only a 40hr week, over time laws would be added and amended to accomodate or take into account the 40hr week regarding all sorts of aspects that effect working life.
    Health and safety, pensions, breaks, holidays, sick pay, maternity leave etc would all be legislated to deal with that 40hr week.
    If it was suddenly decided to change the law to 45hrs or 35hrs a week or scrap the law completely and leave it up to the employer and employee, then all the other laws on health and safety, sick pay, breaks etc etc etc would suddenly be out of step and possibly broken.

    Ergo you can't just suddenly decide to change a law and not have put in place all the required changes and adaptions to laws that are connected or effected by that change.
    Neither can you suddenly change for example the law on holidays to only be a maximum of 3 weeks per year if there is another law that states holidays are calculated on a number of hours worked fixed formula.... unless you change and adapt that law ... and any that are effected by that change ad infinitum.
     
  29. Toko Black

    Toko Black
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,682
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,750
    There are also those that try and subvert our laws and constitution for political and personal gain, and that is what the Supreme court amongst other things is there to stop.
     
  30. Jezza99

    Jezza99
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    3,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,194
    Not if they are one and the same.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...