3 ms·

Good point. WUWT NYT? Investigating... OK, best I can figure is NYT is trying to make the point that if the UK Supreme Court is becoming willing to get involve

Good point. WUWT NYT? Investigating... OK, best I can figure is NYT is trying to make the point that if the UK Supreme Court is becoming willing to get involved with such highly political matters, there's no reason they wouldn't seek to extend that to Parliamentary matters. Does that comport with the facts and opinions here?

pjc50 7y ago
Oh, they did the usual thing of finding a quote from the other side to put in the article. That quote was of course wrong, but they probably felt the need to put it in for balance.
- Kaibeezy 7y ago
  Technically, they've upheld the Scottish court's ruling. I'm sort of seeing the Scottish courts focused on it being illegal for Parliament not to be able to do its job. Two sides of a 2-dimensional object.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    I think that since this is the English case the Scottish case now evaporates and doesn't get appealed separately, so we don't get to find out how that would have worked out.
    - skissane 7y ago
      They upheld the Scottish judgement, and overturned the English one. It was both cases. They reached the same conclusion as the Scottish case, but with somewhat different reasons. They avoided the issue about the PM’s motivations/purpose that the Scottish judgement focused on. Instead, they said the impact of the prorogation on Parliament’s ability to do its job made it unlawful, so they didn’t have to consider the PM’s motivations.
stordoff 7y ago
As noted in the ruling, they are prohibited from ruling on exclusively Parliamentary matters, both by the Bill of Rights 1688 (Parliament of England and Wales): > That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament. And Claim of Right 1689 (Parliament of Scotland): > That for redress of all greivances and for the amending strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members. Whilst the Court determines the scope of Parliamentary privilege (i.e. determining what constitutes a proceeding of Parliament), there is a very clear reason they would not extend their purview to Parliamentary matters, and clearly they have no power to overrule Acts of Parliament.

pjc50 7y ago

Oh, they did the usual thing of finding a quote from the other side to put in the article. That quote was of course wrong, but they probably felt the need to put it in for balance.

Kaibeezy 7y ago
Technically, they've upheld the Scottish court's ruling. I'm sort of seeing the Scottish courts focused on it being illegal for Parliament not to be able to do its job. Two sides of a 2-dimensional object.
- pjc50 7y ago
  I think that since this is the English case the Scottish case now evaporates and doesn't get appealed separately, so we don't get to find out how that would have worked out.
  - skissane 7y ago
    They upheld the Scottish judgement, and overturned the English one. It was both cases. They reached the same conclusion as the Scottish case, but with somewhat different reasons. They avoided the issue about the PM’s motivations/purpose that the Scottish judgement focused on. Instead, they said the impact of the prorogation on Parliament’s ability to do its job made it unlawful, so they didn’t have to consider the PM’s motivations.

stordoff 7y ago

As noted in the ruling, they are prohibited from ruling on exclusively Parliamentary matters, both by the Bill of Rights 1688 (Parliament of England and Wales): > That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament. And Claim of Right 1689 (Parliament of Scotland): > That for redress of all greivances and for the amending strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members. Whilst the Court determines the scope of Parliamentary privilege (i.e. determining what constitutes a proceeding of Parliament), there is a very clear reason they would not extend their purview to Parliamentary matters, and clearly they have no power to overrule Acts of Parliament.