4 ms·
What a horrible, biased analysis. Please cite your legal resources that would contradict the highest court in the UK who unanimously agreed that this was, in fa
by dadarepublic 7y ago
What a horrible, biased analysis. Please cite your legal resources that would contradict the highest court in the UK who unanimously agreed that this was, in fact, illegal.
- dang 7y agoI'm afraid your comments have been repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Would you please look them over and stick to the rules when posting to HN? We'd be grateful. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- turc1656 7y agoBiased how? Because I disagree with you? And the courts always get things right, yeah? Especially when it's a rushed decision based on an urgent and time sensitive event? Also, I have no skin in the UK game at all. I'm not a citizen and don't give a shit who's in power over there. I'm just an outside observer with a tub of popcorn. The court ruled that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and she was the one who actually has the power to prorogue parliament. The Queen is exempt from the legal process and as Queen everything she does within her powers is assumed to be legal. The courts know this, which is why they want the crazy route to declare Johnson's advice/request to be the thing that was illegal. It's absurd.