Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 11:00, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Did they research it, or did they create it?Â* Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both.Â* Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer?Â* Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?


They didn't create any new law. Any claims to the contrary are
misguided, and probably originate from those who are determined to see
the decision as an attempt to influence Brexit.


I am prepared to concede the possibility :-) But thanks for the
response. It is interesting, but I'm not going to pretend to understand
it (which is, of course, not required). I'm not sure that such things
ought to be settled in the courts; but I guess that's what the future
has in store for us, and at least it doesn't involve civil war.

I don't feel Todal adequately answered your last question, "Or does their
authority make it definitive, with nothing else needed?"

That is exactly the case. People trust in their experience and judgement.


Isn't it 'judgment'? (Sorry, couldn't resist it - I know you'd
appreciate it really) :-)

"Judgment can also be spelled "judgement," and usage experts have long
disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler asserted, "The
OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older and more reasonable spelling.
'Judgement' is therefore here recommended." William Safire held an opposite
opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be followed."
"Judgement" is in fact the older spelling, but it dropped from favor and for
centuries "judgment" was the only spelling to appear in dictionaries. That
changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was published showing "judgement" as an
equal variant. Today, "judgment" is more popular in the U.S., whereas both
spellings make a good showing in Britain."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment

Because "judgement" is the older spelling, I consider it correct


If 'judgment' is preferred in the US, I may have to bite the bullet and
change my mind :-) Hard to change the habit of a lifetime, though.

But that's why I said I didn't understand the text. I understand the
words all right. But suppose I'd written them? Obviously no-one would
give them a moment's consideration. There is nothing intrinsically
authoritative in the words. I have to assume that something is
conferred upon them by the person(s) that wrote them. Since they appear
to be the highest authority in the land, what else can one say? Perhaps
there is some supranational court to which one could apply? :-)

That's the one thing I find odd about a system that relies so much on the
establishment of precedents. In many cases, the opinion of one person can
forever change the intepretation of a law. In this case, it was a football team



It's a very odd system. For the political classes to resort to it seems
wrong, somehow. Let's just have the judges run the country.