Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful
- Thread starter owlo
- Start date
A judge's role is to listen to the evidence and provide a judgement. They rely on the cases put forward to them to make their decision.
The same applies with a jury, they listen to the evidence and then make a judgement based on that.
What exactly are they experts in?And don't say law, because the next question will be for which specific areas of law.
Couple of questions guys,
1, does this decision mean that when John major did the same thing he also acted unlawfully?
2, To those who keep making the point that there is no alternative to the backstop, what would the border arrangements be if there is no deal and the UK just leaves?
1, does this decision mean that when John major did the same thing he also acted unlawfully?
2, To those who keep making the point that there is no alternative to the backstop, what would the border arrangements be if there is no deal and the UK just leaves?
The worrying thing is there's not that much that's difficult to understand.
The government wanted the supreme court to effectively say that it's up to the government when and why it prorogues parliament. They made no argument that is was "normal practice" or otherwise (probably because of how weak that argument would have been). So that argument is a non starter.
Saying the court shouldn't be able to decide if the government is law abiding is a self defeating argument. The government sets laws that the court is there to make sure are abided by.
Yep, mind-blowing that people don't know how the who court process works.
Seems some think that the jidges, being experts in law and all that, just make a judgement.
It's not as if they rely heavily on the cases put forward by lawyers which erm.. Usually contain the views of experts.
You would think the people fist bumping each other in this thread would have ab grasp on the process.
Actually, it can't. The Labour Party, the LibDems, The SNP and a few oddball MPs have decided the UK can't leave.
Ok so I'm not allowed to say that Supreme Court Judges are experts in Law because that doesnt suit your argument - ok you got me, they clearly are not experts on anything other than Law (which is irrelevant of course according to you). This really is a remarkable thread.
You realise that if the Judges felt that the evidence put in front of them was insufficient they perhaps would rule that way - or demand more evidence? You don't think that the representatives on BOTH sides of the argument may have a determination to put their case across as robustly as they possibly could?
Honestly not sure what you are grasping at here.
Their job?
Bravo.
Actually the answer is Law, it's application, interpretation and socialization. As for which areas of Law, it depends on the chamber that your talking about, jurists do not work or study every aspects Law, they have specialties.
If the EU have no intention of entertaining any forms of flexibility in this delicate situation, you're right.
That is the UK's problem, not the EU's.
The Tories have also decided the same. If they had voted for May's deal, we'd be out by now.
There are some in the UK who can't agree - true. Only got to look at the posts on here and the other ' official ' Brexit thread.
Apart from the fact that they have changed the terms of the back-stop several times now to try and support the Government in getting the deal through Parliament? I mean if we completely ignore that then you are 100% correct.
What kind of flexibility, it's not as if the UK proposed anything that works?
17.4m people voted for Brexit. Within that 17.4m there is probably a few thousand interpretations on what they thought that meant. It's absolutely no surprise that a majority from 650 people in the house of commons can't agree on what that Brexit should be.
No idea what you are on about tbh. Why has it suddenly gone from them being experts in law, to being experts in things outside of law.
I mean, they might be experts in some fields, whether that's based on law or something else. But as judges their roll is to judge based on evidence. They do not need to be experts to do that.
The last referendum was a virtual draw.
Leave proclaiming it as a clear win with a singular mandate is the major issue.
I was merely correcting the statement.
Genuine question....
We know why the Hardcore Tories voted against May's WDA and likewise the SNP.
But why did Corbyn's lot and the LibDems vote against it ??
Yes, they would have practiced specific law. Which they may be experts on. That could be criminal or corporate law or anything.
None of which makes them experts on any specific case.
The EU was flexible. It accepted the UK's proposal of backstop that covered all of the UK, which was not the EU's original plan. Then the UK fell apart over its own proposal, at which point the EU granted extended time for the UK to sort itself out, which the UK has largely wasted.
Rather than complaining about the EU being inflexible, one might consider why the UK has yet to put forward a single solution to a problem they unilaterally created.
Well given SHC found it 11/0, the English court did an appalling job and the judges concerned should have their credentials seriously investigated.
This makes no sense, you are expert on a field not a case. Your mechancic isn't expert in WensleyMU's car.
C'mon....
Saturday was a virtual draw if we all agree that two goals is virtually the same as nil goals.
But there you go - crazy West Ham fans claiming it as a clear win....
What's your objection to having a border in the Irish Sea?
FFS 
On the day when @WensleyMU's ludicrous claim to know more about everyone else about how Parliament works was blown out of the water he's now arguing that he knows more than everyone about how the courts work.
On the day when @WensleyMU's ludicrous claim to know more about everyone else about how Parliament works was blown out of the water he's now arguing that he knows more than everyone about how the courts work.
Hi Paul...
Have the EU offered / suggested that ??
I said that two years ago - got shouted down....
Maybe he's been in court a lot.FFS
On the day when @WensleyMU's ludicrous claim to know more about everyone else about how Parliament works was blown out of the water he's now arguing that he knows more than everyone about how the courts work.
Ah ok didn't get which court in particular the poster was referring to.
Hi, yes that was the EU's suggestion ages ago which the UK refused, obviously because of the DUP deal.
FFS
On the day when @WensleyMU's ludicrous claim to know more about everyone else about how Parliament works was blown out of the water he's now arguing that he knows more than everyone about how the courts work.
Simple question.
Did the judges require the evidence, which included a number of experts on both sides to put forward their respective cases before being able to make their judgement.
If the answer is yes, then the judges relied on the testimony and expert knowledge of those putting the case before them.
If not, then they may as well call themselves Dredd.
It's a simple question. One that should have a simple answer.
To assist those struggling to grasp this basic concept, imagine that it was a jury, and not the judge making the judgement.
Are juries experts too?
Oh, and as today set a precedent, my views were based on the previous precedent.
Are you serious or on a wind up?
Judges and juries are not equivalent. When a jury hears a trial, who gives them instructions? Judges, whose job it is to interpret the law based on their expertise in the law. Judges also act as the arbiters in any trial or case, deciding what's admissible, what's necessary, what's appropriate, etc. Judges are required to be experts in all sorts of law.
If you have a choice between a bench trial or a jury trial, you pick the jury trial because you know they are not experts in the law and are open to other influences or biases. You can't equate the two positions.
I'd have thought that the DUP can be ' bought ' out of their objections - they do have form....
I still think the best solution for the whole shebang would be a GE - but I'm not expecting Corbyn and Swinson to agree.
Judges are not juries ffs
Just to close off another ridiculous notion, judges on Britains Got Talent aren't real judges either!
Being a doctor in medicine makes you an expert in medecine. Now of course you can have even more expertise in particular fields but that's beside the point that you initially made.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that there's any basis for your views.