Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I did not know this.

Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Part 3, §23,(1)

Has a bit more practice than the Fixed Terms Act.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Sep 13th, 2019 at 01:41:00 AM EST
How might the Supreme Court rule?
The UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for both English law, and Scottish law. Both the English and the Scottish cases are now going to be heard together by the Supreme Court. Because of the constitutional principles at stake, the UK Supreme Court will probably try to render English public law and Scottish public law consistent, so that the prorogation was lawful in both, or unlawful in both
< reckless eyeballin' >
However, the Supreme Court could in theory agree with both the English High Court and the Scottish Court of Session, and rule that the prorogation was lawful under English law but not under Scottish law. In that case, the prorogation would be unlawful in the UK overall.
hobgoblin and little minds. m'k

THE QUEEN on the application of GINA MILLER and THE PRIME MINISTER [et al.]
High Court judgment 11 Sep 2019

OPINION OF LORD CARLOWAY, THE LORD PRESIDENT in the reclaiming motion byJOANNA CHERRY QC MP and OTHERS against THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Court of Session opinion 11 Sep 2019

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 04:29:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
prepared for the worst

That is reading 68 pp Cherry pleading to frauds by government to pervert sovereignty of parliament under EUWA2018--in principle, no evidence of loss or damages.

In Miller, the (rejected) evidence of EUWA2018 offending executive acts for prorogation is "rank bad reasons."

In McCord, review of executive powers at EUWA2018 §10 separates (rejected) evidence of "impugned decision".

So. In the case of the US American version--Commerce v. New York et al. (Jul 2019) under the Administrative Procedures Act--SCOTUS affirmed executive authority and remanded a "contrived" explanation to the lower court for review, which POTUS declined to repair.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 06:09:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Besides Commerce which left in place race gerrymandering,

Besides the Oversight! subpoena power litigation which ages over multiply sessions,

Besides the impeachment saga in refining House rules and compelling evidence,

there are the emoluments cases (lost track of how many) all languishing in the most inferior courts. Here's an update demonstrating how appellate courts entertained Trump's opposition for 2 years. One court cleared standing of a 2x, irrc,  amended complaint. Definition, or test, of an emolument has stalled. But CREW is developing a theory of "zones of interest." Annoying stuff, but not the most annoying. You see, 4th Circuit is on to something. That is lack of feasible remedy for injured parties. 4th Circuit explains, enjoining Trump won't hide knowledge of Trump properties from everyone else.

Similarly, "blind trust" won't erase Trump knowledge of Trump properties. For achieve that level of ignorance, or innocence, the ct would have to prescribe something like a lobotomy for every president-elect. Or a vow of poverty, complete "divestment" of every ownership interests.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Sep 25th, 2019 at 03:37:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
McCord (Raymond), JR83 and Jamie Waring's Applications v The Prime Minister and others, judgment of HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
w/o 12 Sep in Revolt in the Heart of UK Democracy

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Sep 30th, 2019 at 02:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"the dictum of Lord Sumption," among others, is cited three times in Cherry. The first time with respect to the scope of judiciable royal prerogative, proscribed by tests of lawful public acts.
A prerogative decision may be the subject of a judicial review [citation her omitted] ...Whether the issue is ultimately justiciable will depend upon the subject matter [citation her omitted] ...As a generality, decisions which are made on the basis of legitimate political considerations alone are not justiciable (Shergill v Khaira[2015] AC 359, Lords Neuberger, Sumption and Hodge at para [40];Gibson v Lord Advocate1975 SC 136, Lord Keith at 144). It is not possible to apply to such decisions the public law tests of reasonableness (Council of Civil Service Unions vMinister for the Civil Service: re GCHQ (supra) Lord Diplock at 411), impartiality (McClean v First Secretary of State[2017]EWHC 3174 (Admin),Sales LJ at paras [21] and [22]) or fettering of discretion (R (Sandiford) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs[2014] 1 WLR 2697). In this case, if the challenge was based upon these judicial review considerations or similar matters, it would not be justiciable.
Over all, the meaning of "legitimate political considerations" seems to be a trope denoting any enacted authority exercised by an elected ahh minister.

Be that as it may or may not, citations of Lord Sumptions opinions or judgments on the matter of royal prerogatives in 2015 (not even precedent) are given to justify claims that Johnson's exercise of prorogation is not judiciable. Which is further reason to note, Sumption should have kept his contradictory "suggestions" shut to the presses rather than spoil current deliberation of presiding "Law Lords" and general "apprehension" (read: fear) of their subscribers.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Sep 16th, 2019 at 03:45:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Law Lords
From 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed jurisdiction on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
not a good sign of competence

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Sat Sep 14th, 2019 at 08:14:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series