3 ms·
Boris Johnson's suspension of UK parliament unlawful, supreme court rules
- Kaibeezy 7y agoUnanimous, too, which was not expected. NYTimes article explains: ... legal experts worry that upholding the Scottish ruling would set a troubling precedent. It would open the door, they said, to a form of judicial review that is widely accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme Court that actively interprets it. Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and conventions that have treated a sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the land. Once the courts venture into the political sphere and begin passing judgment on Parliament’s actions, legal analysts say, there is no going back. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-court-brexit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-c...
- philbarr 7y agoThis is what happens when people abuse those conventions.
- alfromspace 7y agoI'd say the same thing about the US judicial branch.
- smn1234 7y agoconversation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21058107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21058107
- dTal 7y agoImportant to note is that Johnson had maintained that the prorogation had "nothing to do with Brexit", and this fact is central to whether he acted improperly (which is a separate issue to whether the suspension itself was lawful, and one the courts have thus far declined to comment on). As of today, Johnson is claiming that a Brexit deal is "not made much easier by this kind of stuff in parliament, or in the courts". So he appears to have twigged that no one is buying his explanation, and is edging towards making it all about Brexit again to salvage the narrative. But I wonder what the legal implications would be if Johnson let slip that he had deliberately mislead the Queen.