Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Is this the equivalent of what liberal judges do in the u.s.

President Trump wanted a travel ban
The citizens wanted a travel ban

But no, some liberal judge in Hawaii has the final say?

a reply to: Bloodworth

Well, they won't ban us from traveling anywhere in the EU.

But they may well charge us when we land and cross their borders with goods and trade.

Nothing like the Trumps ludicrous travel ban at all.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Scotland is going to figure out just how little they matter to the queen.

Do you mean the British Legal System will find out how little it means to the Queen?

That too.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Bloodworth

Well, they won't ban us from traveling anywhere in the EU.

But they may well charge us when we land and cross their borders with goods and trade.

Nothing like the Trumps ludicrous travel ban at all.

That analogy was more about how the president can call for something, its something supported by the citizens.
But its overturned by a liberal judge.

3 years ago when trump 1st took office, air lines were too sacred to fly out of certain places.

The ids of the people boarding were .mostly fake, and you had hard core muslims flying back and fourth like. Nothing.

Many wanted a travel ban. But like I said some judge shot it down so the best the airlines got was a ban on electronic devices on board.

Terrorist traveling back and 4th training in murder, that's fine.

a reply to: Bloodworth

Trump's idea of ""Terrorist"" equates to Muslims and brown people.

I think when it comes to murder and mayhem the Terrorists don't really have a look in giving both our nations track record.

Leavers or remainers, nobody wanting travel bans over here, not even nonsensical Doris Nonsense.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Basically they are saying that it was the advice that Boris gave to the queen was misleading and therefore unlawful

If unlawful in Scotland there is a real possibility that it will found illegal in England too and if so is a serious matter.

So the Scottish court is the highest court in the UK to rule that it was unlawful, the Scottish Court of Sessions has jurisdiction over Westminster so as of right now then the legal position is that prorogation was illegal.

Now on Tuesday a appeal will be heard in the Supreme Court along with the other high profile case that is ongoing under English law regarding the prorogation. So until then the legal position remains as ruled by the Scottish court of Session.

It is unclear what the position of the UK Supreme Court will be however they have appointed 9 justices to the case. I done some reading this morning at it seems that Scottish courts tend to be less nauseous about getting involved in politics than the rest of the UK due to the different legal systems in use. So really next week is the big judgement however like I said above as of right now the legal position of the UK Judiciary is that prorogation was unlawful.

The High Court of England & Wales is not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions.
The High Court in Northern Ireland today also concurred with the High Court of England & Wales and rejected the this case that prorogation was unlawful.

The current legal position is that we have courts disagreeing and the UK Supreme Court will arbitrate next week.

Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Bloodworth

Trump's idea of ""Terrorist"" equates to Muslims and brown people.

I think when it comes to murder and mayhem the Terrorists don't really have a look in giving both our nations track record.

Leavers or remainers, nobody wanting travel bans over here, not even nonsensical Doris Nonsense.

Not all cultures are the same. some are smarter and harder working than others.
You get what you import.

Who wants from the top murder capitals of the world?
That's why there is a direct correlation with rapes, acid attacks, gay bashing and church attacks.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

a reply to: Bloodworth

I live in a city that used to be, and still is synonymous with murder.

Acid attacks, gay-bashing or attacks on churches, not so much.

What you really mean is not all people are the same.

All cultures, creeds, colour, and religion and are welcome here in the U.K.

Right-wing halfwit retarded racist xenophobes, not so much.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that has been broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.
No other court agrees with them.
We'll see what the UK Supreme Court says - if they do agree, then their decision will be legitimate if they can cite the specific law broken.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

Yes, I've seen the details.
No law is cited. It's a rambling piece of fluff about the constitution and 'conventions' that are not law.
Remainers in robes who disgraced themselves by entangling the Scottish Court of Session (forever now known as the Kangaroo Court) in politics.
One has even spoken negatively about Brexit.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

Yes, I've seen the details.
No law is cited. It's a rambling piece of fluff about the constitution and 'conventions' that are not law.
Remainers in robes who disgraced themselves.
One has even spoken negatively about Brexit.

This is a constitutional issue and courts can , and have, rule on such things.

Claiming they can't is nonsense.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

Yes, I've seen the details.
No law is cited. It's a rambling piece of fluff about the constitution and 'conventions' that are not law.
Remainers in robes who disgraced themselves.
One has even spoken negatively about Brexit.

This is a constitutional issue and courts can , and have, rule on such things.

Claiming they can't is nonsense.

Again, 'constituional issues' is a fluff term that requires specifics.
Our constitution includes Acts of Parliament that have codified the nature of parts of our constitution, so of course courts have judged on the legal aspects of our constitution.
Our constitution also includes unwritten conventions that are not legal matters - they are handled by institutional codes of conduct, not law courts.
If a court passes judgement on something that is not law, they do so illegitimately.
Our constitution is one of a few worldwide (not many) that is not wholly law or even wholly a legal framework.
Declaring a person who did not follow a constitutional convention as being unlawful is like saying someone guilty of an ethics violation is unlawful. It's nonsense...and in this case the Kangaroo court was being political.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

Yes, I've seen the details.
No law is cited. It's a rambling piece of fluff about the constitution and 'conventions' that are not law.
Remainers in robes who disgraced themselves.
One has even spoken negatively about Brexit.

This is a constitutional issue and courts can , and have, rule on such things.

Claiming they can't is nonsense.

Again, 'constituional issues' is a fluff term that requires specifics.
Our constitution includes Acts of Parliament that have codified the unwritten constitution, so of course courts have judged on the legal aspects of our constitution.
Our constitution also includes unwritten conventions that are not legal matters - they are handled by institutional codes of conduct, not law courts.
If a court passes judgement on something that is not law, they do so illegitimately.

That is completely wrong.

UK courts can and do rule on the UK constitution.

See the original Miller case.