Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

UK Supreme Court: Prorogation Null and Void!

by ARGeezer Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 10:26:02 AM EST

In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court of the UK has ruled that the prorogation of Parliament by the Prime Minister is null and void. The Speaker of the House, the leaders of the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Labour have called for Parliament to be reconvened as soon as possible.

This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.
....
No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court....It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

 

Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger


The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the court should grant. The court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a "proceeding in parliament" which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This court has already concluded that the prime minister's advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices.

It is for parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the advocate general's appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller's appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.

Display:
The Liberal Democrats' Jo Swinson, Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, the SNP' Joanna Cherry and Plaid Cymru's  Liz Saville Roberts all call for Boris Johnson to resign. Nigel Farell calls for Dominic Cummings to resign. John Bercow calls for Parliament to convene as soon as posible. Wednesday morning seems likely.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 10:39:36 AM EST
Nigel Farage, of course, was called for Dominic Cummings to resign. I awoke at 4AM my time and decided, as I was up to check what was happening in England. I was not at my clearest, and I did not see additional diaries on the subject. My apologies to IdiotSavant.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"This court has ... concluded that the prime minister's advice to Her Majesty [ to suspend parliament] was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect should be quashed.

"This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords [to prorogue parliament] it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued."

Hale continued: "It is for parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court."

From the full text of the verdict h/t Guardian. (emphasis mine)

Not much Boris can do about this. Seeking a new prorogation is surely doomed to failure. Parliament will re-convene, possibly tomorrow.

There will be many calls for Boris's resignation. He probably won't listen. "If you want to get me out, vote no confidence, sweeties." That is of course the road to a general election and a likely new Tory majority (with Farage?).

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 11:05:38 AM EST
I think at this point some work around can be found. Parliament has already passed an act requiring the PM to send a specific form letter to the EU requesting an extension of the Brexit deadline. The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament is supreme in these matters over the PM when Parliament has a majority opposed to the PM.

So Parliament could, on a point of order, again seize control of the agenda and pass another bill requiring the letter to be sent at an earlier date certain, the earliest feasible, within three days of royal assent to the bill. In view of Boris Johnson's stated refusal to comply with the existing legislation and his proven history of lying, this would be a reasonable precaution. Failing forthcoming action by Johnson Parliament could find him in contempt. At that point several options appear.

Parliament could vote to arrest Johnson and his cabinet, at least Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Moog - and confine them in the Tower of London if need be. This would follow in the English constitutional tradition of Parliament making law in exigent circumstances.

Parliament could vote no confidence in the PM, but not in the government, again claiming exigent circumstances. They could follow this with a vote of confidence in an interim PM, to serve until new elections could be held.

PM Boris Johnson has, in effect, claimed the prerogatives of a monarch, so it is back to the days of Charles I and the first Long Parliament. Monarchs used to claim the right to find the law. That right was seized by Parliament in the 1640s. The recently formed Supreme Court of the UK has ruled unanimously in favor of Parliament in this instance. Act with alacrity and there will be time for them to rule again if necessary.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How did Labour screw up so badly that working people reject them for the Elitist Tories?

I ubderstand how this happened in the USA, but did Britain follow the same Neoliberal an-native anti-white anti-union pro-bank path?

by StillInTheWilderness on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 06:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Britain is patient zero.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 06:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Full text here:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

by IdiotSavant on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 11:39:06 AM EST
by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 11:40:45 AM EST
It will be noted that no where does the judgment state the unanimity of the court. And that's OK (majority rules, stare decisis, all that), except that Owen says it's unanimous. Also HRM has ahh assented to advice to alter composition of the SCOTUK, effective Jan 2020.

Parliament truly has its work cut out.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 12:13:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

From the summary of the judgment in the Guardian, provided by the SC.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 12:41:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I sit corrected. I read the full judgment.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 01:31:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And you're right the full judgment does not include those words.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 01:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
SCOTUK index page, Miller et al., mostly Miller

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 01:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by generic on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The proragation of parliament was initiated to prevent Parliament discussing or interfering with any of Boris' plots.

so they'll move to plan B;- filibustering parliament at every opportunity. Every procedural trick n the book to prevent anything of substance happening.

these people are wreckers, so they're ideally suited to guming up the works

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 02:49:22 PM EST
Maybe, but the only way to prevent Brexit is to withdraw Article 50. Is there a parliamentary majority for that?

And if so, would BoJo carry a withdrawal letter to the EU? And if not, would the supreme court declare him in violation of some previously unheard of law or rule or tradition or gentlemans' understanding?

Seems most likely that parliament will continue to muddle aimlessly while the PM sits and waits on the calendar.

by asdf on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, Corbyn has set himself against cancelling A50, so there's no chance it'd even be debated let alone passed.

Right now, tactics are unknowable, they're being written on the back of fag packets by people on trains rushing back to London as we speak.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Against cancelling A50, or against requesting an extension?

I agree Corbyn's stance right now is dick-headed, but I don't think he's for an automatic crash-out on 31 October.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
against cancelling A50, but definitely very much for the extension.

tbh I think he's right, or at lest is the best intentioned of the party leaders. The country is horribly divided and is probably ungovernable until there is a resolution acceptable to the majority.

So,
1/Getting an extension,
2/ calling a vote of no confidence
3/winning an election
4/negotiating a deal MUCH closer to the EU, probably well within the customs union
5/ offering a referendum of this deal or cancel a50

seems like a reasonable plan if somewhat long-winded. It is to Fleet Street's discredit that they pretend not to understand this

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.  --- Upton Sinclair


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And when his billionaire employers wish for nothing better than ignorance, obfuscation, denial of evidence.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, what is the implication on the Queen's role in this, now?

The PM made an illegal request, and she implemented it. And without apparent objection. Is that a case of just following orders? Is it an example of a completely powerless monarch? Is it a case of her agreeing with his Brexit goal and supporting his political activities? Is it a situation where the judicial system should pass sentence on her action as a lawbreaker?

In fact, it is not even routine lawbreaking: she apparently violated the solemn and long-standing Constitution of the United Kingdom. That seems pretty extreme.

What does the Constitution say about monarchs who attempt to undermine the pure, sacred, and privileged activities of parliament? Seems like the UK is now re-litigating the 17th century...

by asdf on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:31:10 PM EST
It'n not the duty of the Queen, the Monarch ... clear judgement by UKSC, wrongdoing by the Privy Council, a humiliation of BoJo, his cabinet and his advisors. The buck stops with him ... let's be very clear about that. No washing of hands like Pontius Pilate.

As if Parliament was handed a blank piece of paper! Null - void - prorogation didn't happen ... two black eyes for Boris.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You can imagine the teasing Boris will get whenever he has a speech or other document in his hand: "Is that a blank sheet of paper you have there Boris?"

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"I have in my hand a piece of paper..."

Now who was it said that?

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I barely got over the "non-papers" taken to Brussels for crucial negotiations to end the no-deal chance of crashing out of our EU partnership. Non-papers are the property of Her Majesty - the Queen again - not to be shared with the heads of States of the EU27.

Another non-starter invented by the BoJo team residing in Downing Street 10.

At least we learned what the "YellowSheets" entailed.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While the Queen is seen as having had little choice, and is therefore personally blameless, the episode does highlight the uselessness of the monarchy as an institution, and I doubt HRH is best pleased about that.

In Ireland, for instance, the largely ceremonial Head of state is the President who does have the power to refer any Bills sent to him for signature by the government to the Supreme Court first, in order to test their Constitutionality.

Could the Queen's advisors not have advised her to do similarly? It seems not. But if the Monarchy is not to be an absolutely useless fig leaf for untrammelled PM power it has to be either abolished or made more useful. Can she do anything without or against the advice of her PM?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rly? HRM is a "victim"?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She is being made to look toothless, which is not a good look for a 93 year old Queen

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Her mother looked toothless, but it might have been the result of uncorking her gin bottles with her gnashers.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The PM made an unlawful request.

Y'all think I've been fooling about lawyers and their dictionaries. I am not.

SCOTUK chose to adjudicate questions of "lawfullness" advisedly. The PM did not commit a crime. Royal prerogative per se is judiciable --subject to review and judgment-- to the extent provided by parliamentary acts (laws). If the manner and subject of PM "advice" for teh monarch is not prescribed by law, but by "convention", the court proceeds to certify and adjudicate merits of the PM's (un)lawful conference with teh monarch brought by appellant(s) according to common law doctrine ("case law") deciding equity.

27. Both cases raise the same four issues, although there is some overlap between the issues: (1) Is the question of whether the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen was lawful justiciable in a court of law? (2) If it is, by what standard is its lawfulness to be judged? (3) By that standard, was it lawful? (4) If it was not, what remedy should the court grant?
Of course, "constitutional" law does not vest legislative and executive authority in judiciary.

So. Did Owen mention yet what remedy the court granted appelants?

archived "English law"
DICTION CORNER
lawful
DICTION CORNER
Not that equity, the other one.
the law is retrospective as it should be

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure about the USA, but in UK (and common law generally?) there is a distinction between constitutional, civil and criminal law. Only breaches of the latter are deemed to be "crimes" and their perpetrators "criminals". You can be in breach of contract - e.g. not paying your rent - without being a criminal.

But tbh a higher standard applies to PM's who are supposed to be fully compliant with all law at all times - as to be otherwise reduces respect for the law in general. For the government to have to say they with "obey the law" or "respect a judgement" as if this were a magnanimous concession is in itself astonishing. How could it be otherwise?

Why does even have to be said, and what credit does it give to the government which says it? THE LAW used to be the stick with which Conservatives bludgeoned liberal protestors. Now it is conservatives who are the law breakers...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Common law" also called "case law" is the body of of appellate opinions by courts. A litigant of a criminal or civil trial (the first instance), petitions a superior court to review and rule on error of an inferior court. The error alleged by the appellant might be in a finding of law (statutory procedure or "common law" application to merits of the case admitted by judge or jury instruction) or a finding of fact (typically, omission of exculpatory evidence).

The SCOTUK judgment relies heavily on "common law" opinions for its own reason, because the merits of the case have so little relevance to statute. They admit that. The appellants' objections to the PM's exercise of royal prerogative rely exclusively on "convention" --the duration of the prorogation is unlawful, unacceptable to "the Crown in parliament"; prorogation per se is not unlawful. The SCOTUK ruled against  unlimited exercise of royal prerogative, because "the Crown in parliament" had not limited by statute a "reasonable" prorogation period to Sir John Major's units of Queen's Speech and legislative agenda prep time.

archived
The descent of common pleas
common law
common law and restatements

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 10:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think there are a couple of things here worth considering;-

It took 3 courts to decide if it was illegal. Now the Queen's advisers are good, but I'm not sure they're able to finesse their way through such arcane Constitutional law confidently enough to predict the supreme's decision and then ignore it.

The Queen was having a problem, Prince andrew was all over the front pages and it wasn't going away. I think she and her advisers ARE good enough to recognise that a Constitutional kerfuffle like we've had for the last fortnight would make Andrew the stuff of single paragraphs on page 94.

So, even if the Queen did know she was being gulled by a known liar, she had every reason to go ahead anyway and let the chips fall as they may.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shows you how much I know. I didn't realise most tabloids even had 94 pages, and if they had you would be deep into the sports coverage which is where most of their readers start reading anyway...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Private Eye convention. (cont'd P. 94...)

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:54:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's hard to avoid the conjecture that a younger Monarch, or even the Queen herself a couple of decades previously, would have quibbled, delayed and sought wider advice before consenting to something so constitutionally dubious.

So in addition to giving illegal advice, Boris has, arguably, taken advantage of the diminished condition of a senior citizen [is the Queen a citizen?]

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:46:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Surprised.  

I thought and said they'd find it legal.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:38:55 PM EST
so did I

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So did TBG (see thread from here down).

So didn't I <polishes medal>.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have generally low expectations for the Courts intervening in  matters considered political, but then I don't understand the UK "Constitution" in the first place. What gave me pause for thought was the unanimous Scottish ruling. The UK Supreme Court would hardly wish to open up a huge rift between Scottish and "English" law, now would it?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I really think this was a serious, straight-up decision by the Eng/Wales SC, ie, without ulterior motives.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At least the UK Supreme Court is functioning as intended.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes I did - but I still hold with the suggestion that the verdict was going to reflect the Establishment view of the Johnson Project.

So I would be surprised if there wasn't some Crown influence behind the verdict. If that's correct Johnson will be gone very soon, because the implication is that he really doesn't have the confidence or support of the Establishment, including the Crown.

Apparently something similar happened to Eden after Suez. Eden had planned to hang on, but Her Maj returned to London and had a quiet word. And he was gone.

Tangentially, it's impressive how quickly the SC put this together. It's a very clear and unambiguous judgement on a complex topic, with the input of eleven professionals, assembled over a weekend plus two working days.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll go with that.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 07:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the arguments of Lord Pannick I thought there was a reasonable chance. I also felt that, were the UK Supreme Court not to act in this circumstance, they would be derelict in their duties constitutionally. I did not expect the unanimous decision.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow, the UK has a supreme court instead of a clown car driven by five, black-robed prostitutes.
by rifek on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 07:57:59 PM EST
Interestingly, this case has many parallels with U.S. vs. Nixon in 1974.  In both cases the executive was arguing that, if it said so, it was subject to the supervision of neither the legislative nor judicial branch.  In both cases the respective supreme court unanimously said, "Umm, no."  If only there were a chance of today's SCOTUS ruling thus.
by rifek on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 08:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't.

First of all, indictment, trial, and jurisdiction of POTUS removal from office is expressly prescribed by the US constitution.

Show me that equivalence in UK "constitutional" law --perhaps an article of the Bill of Rights?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 10:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK Supreme Court judgement sought the removal of no office holder, it merely found that in the UK Parliamentary sovereignty is supreme and that acts by the Executive (even with Royal assent) are justiciable.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 11:34:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I read the full judgment, quoted and commented on it at length.

I anticipated conference interruption and UK ELECTION 2019.

I have compared US and UK government constitution in the relevant parts. All US representatives swear an oath to the supreme law of the land.

I ask, What act of [the Crown in] Parliament provides removal of the PM (so-called executive)? because there some folks shining SCOTUK brilliance.

55. ...The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cat:"What act of [the Crown in] Parliament provides removal of the PM (so-called executive)? because there some folks shining SCOTUK brilliance."

To my knowledge there is neither such a specific act nor clear common law precedent. The UK is faced with a novel situation here. (Imagine that! The ancestors did not think of everything.) There is, however, the ancient common law tradition that, in such cases, the sovereign 'finds' the law. Parliament is the sovereign, so it will be up to Parliament to find the law.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 03:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The UK has an unwritten constitution and a body of law derived from tradition and acts of the sovereign. For there to be a law prescribing how to remove a rogue PM, some Parliament would have had to have passed that law. Absent exigent circumstances such as the present situation, as the saying goes:"Turkeys don't vote for Christmas." Nor would Monarchs ever have decreed the method by which they could be removed.

It took the entirety of the Stuart Dynasty to establish the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. It was only during the time of the latter Stuart monarchs that political parties emerged as self conscious entities. And, until the first decades of the 20th Century the House of Lords remained hereditary. At least the UK now has the examples of other governments styling themselves as democratic to which it can look for practical examples of alternate forms of government.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 04:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
dissolves all of [the Crown in] parliament but ...

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 12:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
U.S vs. Nixon was not an impeachment case.  It was a separation of powers case in which the SCOTUS ruled unanimously 1) that the president was not the final arbiter on whether he had to respond to a Congressional subpoena, and 2) that he in fact had to respond.
by rifek on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 05:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but that ruling occurred in the context of an ongoing impeachment investigation.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 08:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but they were not ruling on any substantive issue on impeachment but rather on whether the executive could avoid supervision, hence my comparison to the UK decision.
by rifek on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 10:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Marbury v. Madison

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 11:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I expressed my surprise the other day that Labour governments in the previous century had always scrupulously respected the "unwritten constitution", i.e. the Establishment conventions, precedents and gentlemen's agreements.

Of course, had they not done so, the Establishment courts would have come down on them like a ton of bricks. And it would have been the "law lords", not professional jurists.

I suppose that Boris assumed that it's OK if you are a Tory... and it's rather a surprise that the modern judges are professionals who take their jobs seriously.

Unsurprisingly, the Tories are starting to talk about judges being nominated by Parliament in the future... i.e. political appointees. This might seem democratic to the general public, but in fact, there is no democracy without an independent judiciary.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 04:31:07 PM EST
In theory, "there is no democracy without an independent judiciary".

In practice, Judges and parliament

In US, all Article III (federal court) judges are appointed by POTUS with "advice and consent" of the senate, alone.

The states elect or appoint judges to their courts according to their constitutional requirements.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 04:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That has to do with accountability.

For appointment see:

Appointment

High Court judges are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Judicial Appointments Commission has removed the appointment of judges from the overtly political arena. High Court judges, as with other judges, are appointed on open competition.

High Court judges, as with all judges in England and Wales, hold office during good behaviour; this is laid down in the Bill of Rights 1689. This gives them greater security of tenure than if they held office during His or Her Majesty's pleasure and is designed to protect their independence. A High Court judge can only be removed by the Queen upon an Address of both Houses of Parliament.



"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 07:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
hmm, yes, well, I did provide comprehensive reference above, "Judges and parliament" (judiciary.gov), to teh system.
Judicial Appointments Commission has removed the appointment of judges from the  overtly political arena.
That phrasing coupled to another, "open competition," is a bit of disingenuous representation (stereotypical British understatement), you will discover upon further inspection--left sidebar directory.

All officers of the ministry (judiciary) are appointed by the government of the day, of course, predicated on "confidence" of [the Crown in] parliament, elected by teh people. Each government is expected to ahh effect a peculiar "policy agenda" (Queen's Speech), is it not.

"All officers" includes the JAC as these are confirmed by ...Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, two executive agencies merged by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Public application ("open competition") and nominations ("private" referral) to judicial vacancies is qualified by written examination and ahh oral examination preceding confirmation by the JAC.

How does this "selection and confirmation" system compare to that in the US?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 04:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

derision cascading over collegial conference of to the once venerable, independent and LIBERAL Kennedy ...

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Sep 27th, 2019 at 04:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that the current UK system for appointing judges to high courts is FAR superior to the political method used in the USA. That is one thing the USA should adopt from the UK.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 06:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 06:19:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Republican Party, since the first Reagan Administration, has bragged about how they are going to appoint ideologically conservative judges to the court. Perhaps you are happy with the result. I am not. The UK system avoids that possibility.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 07:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not the answer that I was expecting. I was expecting a procedural critique of each system, given "executive" authority exercised in both systems regardless of party affiliation of the "executive" of the day.

I will rephrase.

Given "UK system for appointing judges to high courts is FAR superior to the political method used in the USA," in what manner is the UK system for appointing judges superior to that in the US?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 07:55:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It minimizes partisan political influence.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 09:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am expecting a procedural critique of the two systems.

How does the "FAR superior" UK system "minimizes partisan political influence" on appointing judges to high courts?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Thu Sep 26th, 2019 at 09:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that you expected a different answer, doesn't mean you can demand a different one.
by Anspen on Sun Sep 29th, 2019 at 08:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
m'k. Point taken. I will not quibble.

I got what I needed to know until further notice.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Sep 30th, 2019 at 02:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

Does anyone care?

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 10
68 comments

Spain is not a democracy

by IdiotSavant - Oct 14
3 comments

The Blame Game

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 8
67 comments

EU-UK Relations: Trading Blows

by Oui - Oct 8
22 comments

John Major's Encore

by ARGeezer - Sep 27
29 comments