On 27 Sep 2019, The Todal wrote
(in article ):

On 27/09/2019 13:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:39, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural 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.

I'm sure the lawyers on both sides researched the law, such as it
exists, absolutely thoroughly. It's their job, you see. It isn't the
job of the Court to research the law independently but just to decide
the case before it solely on the evidence presented in court. That's a
well-established legal principle here in the UK.

In the Supreme Court, the judges certainly do their own legal research
and don't merely rely on the submissions made by counsel.


The fact is that there were no precedents that read onto the case. The
Supreme Court had to break new ground and in so dooing created a
precedent for future cases.

Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed
like a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy
proroguing of Parliament.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Just your glossing over of 'once they had got past that hurdle'. It was
that point on which there was no precedent.

What drivel you talk. Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the judgment.
There was plenty of precedent. Nothing on all fours with the present
case because nobody had yet challenged a modern prorogation of
Parliament but plenty of relevant precedent about challenging the Royal
Prerogative.

Don't rely on the Daily Express for your legal advice, Norman.


Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, given that they've just got back
from their nice summer hols, and are about to have another three weeks
recess when they all go off to their jolly conferences at the seaside.

Lord Pannick correctly pointed out that the conference season is not a
fixture and can be abandoned at time of national crisis - as has
happened now. When the country is about to go to hell in a handcart, MPs
need to spend their time in Parliament not in a seaside hotel drinking beer.

From what I have seen in parliament over the last few days, MPs would be of
more use if they buggered off to a seaside hotel and drank beer.

Most of them are ****ing useless at their jobs.