Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.

Oh heavens no.

In fine British Tradition™ the court ruled that she was given poor advice by her ministers. They are correcting a mistake that she was lead into making by either incompetence or disloyalty (or some mixture thereof) on the part of those in whom she entrusted the common weal and which would threaten to disrupt the Queen's Peace.

Let's just get that point out of the way first. The power of the Queen is irrelevant.

No they explicitly havent. They have said Bojos advice was unlawful and therefore any later actions are null and void. The Queen can still prorogue Parliament but not based on unlawful advice

No they explicitly havent. They have said Bojos advice was unlawful and therefore any later actions are null and void. The Queen can still prorogue Parliament but not based on unlawful advice

Legalistic trickery.

The decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks, you mean? Legalistic skullduggery at it's finest.

As I said, the courts cannot overrule Parliament. But that is not what happened here. See the court’s summary of the judgment:

You are conflating the legislature with the building it sits in.


No, they have effectively overruled Boris.

The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

They effectively ruled that Parliament cannot be prorgued arbitrarily by the PM. That would be a good thing, as rule breakers like Boris could just prorogue parliament indefinitely. There is nothing that says he can't.

See the post above yours
Exactly

Even if that were true, it's an improvement on the stage being left set so that an unelected PM can suspend Parliament to deliberately prevent it performing its oversight role.

and the decision gives Parliament the chance to do exactly that.
It can't fulfill its function when prorogued.

In the UK all our governments are there to govern, and they of course have to act within the law. It is the courts' responsibility to make a judgement on whether a government has acted lawfully. The various parliaments' responsibility is to pass legislation. When a situation arises in which a constitutional point is to be decided (that is not already part of our constitution) it is the courts' role to decide on that.

If the Westminster Parliament is unhappy with how a court has judged on a constitutional point it can enact new legislation that renders that judgement null and void.

Now I originally thought the court would have decided that if parliament had wanted to limit the ability of the monarch to prorogue parliament it would have done so.

However the judges being canny about the law avoided all that by a crafty side step.

How you think things should be is a red herring. As things stand the courts have the power to review administrative actions. If Parliament wants to prevent the courts deciding such matters, and remove the powers of the courts to subject the executive to scrutiny, it can do so through appropriate legislation.

There is no specific piece of legislation that forbids the specific actions Johnson took. Instead, he acted outside what he is legally entitled to do.

This is why his actions were ruled "unlawful", rather than "illegal".

That doesn't even remotely sum up my reply to you. Instead that reads like you had already made up your mind and are trying desperately to twist everything in order to allow yourself to convince yourself that you're right.

How do you expect them to do that while prorogued?

You clearly have no idea how English law works.

Well if that ever happens let us know. In this case the SC very explicitly ruled that power lay with Parliament and that nothing should interfere with Parliament's ability to perform its role. It's astonishingly clear for a legal document.

The proroguing of parliament is an act that is part of the UK's constitutional law. Therefore, the courts have a say, as it is up to the courts to enforce and apply that law.

UK law is governed by precedent. There is nothing in constitutional law that proroguing can be used to stifle debate and the SC has ruled that is what Johnson tried to do.

The SC can already "meddle with the timing of elections". Electoral Law sets the length of time a parliament can sit and how long between elections. If a government was to break one of those laws, the SC can step in.

Parliament creates the laws, the courts enforce them.

Constitutional law determines what the PM and Queen can and cannot do. For example, the circumstances under which Parliament can be prorogued.

No, in this case in was the PM who overstepped what he is lawfully allowed to do under Constitutional Law and quite rightly, when there is rule of law, the SC stepped in, ruled the PM had broken the law and stopped the proroguing.

If Johnson wants to prorogue Parliament to stop debate, he needs to get the law changed to allow him to do that. He has no chance of getting that law passed.

If you caught speeding today, use these words.
‘I have the highest regard for the police force, but I think their decision is wrong. Though I will respect it, what’s important now is that I get to my destination as quickly as possible.’

Brexiters:
“Give back control to our UK institutions”

Also, Brexiters:
“Down with the Supreme Court, judges, Parliament, the civil service, the Good Friday Agreement, the union, British business, the CBI, the BMA, universities, the constitution, the law and the Queen!”

I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand :)

Wrong. The Bill of Rights is part of the British Constitution, and the ruling of the SC is that this particular prorogation was unconstitutional because it infringed on the ability of parliament to carry out its supervisory function and hence on the supremacy of parliament guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Dave

The Mail is asking, "Who runs Britain?" They seem to have missed that the answer is, definitively, "Parliament." The Express is whingeing about Brexit, though we know from Boris that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit; they must have missed that bit. The Sun has decided, in its usual classy way, that personal abuse against Lady Hale is the responsible way to go.

All the rest of the papers seem to be giving Boris the kicking he deserves.

Dave

The Sun "Debbie, 19 from Stevenage, what a crackerjack unlike the supreme court who are simply crackers"

Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?

No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively.

Read para 39 and 40 (from recollection) it describes how UK law works there

Edited to add 'and para 41'

Courts in the UK cannot create laws.

They create case law which forms part of the legal system but not legislation. Arguably case law is just the codifying of common law or clarification of the legislature

There is no constitution. There is Constitutional Law, made up of common laws and statutory laws (such as the various Electoral laws). Prorogation is common law. You can read about it here;

https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi.../prorogation1/

The Queen's only role in prorogation is that she is the only person who can prorogue parliament. Just as she does with all statutory laws, she signs it off and thereby they formally begin. It is a ceremonial role.

The SC are not concerned with the Queen's small and ceremonial role in prorogation.

No, the PM tried to create a new law by using prorogation to stifle debate in parliament and the SC stopped him. Prorogation is not a lawful means to stop parliament in any and all circumstances, it is limited to very specific circumstances, you can read about that here;

https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi...1/prorogation/

Don't know what you mean...
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...419c83fff8.jpgP1096217.jpg by zooterkin, on Flickr

Exactly; the SC did the minimum needed to establish that control should be back with Parliament, as opposed to the Government. That may be setting a precedent, but that's only because we have someone as PM who is gaming the system and pushing the limits of his authority (maybe he was influenced by House of Cards, as well as the joker in charge in the US).
All the commentary I've heard and read has said this, I think I will go and read it myself. :)

That is exactly what case law is. Parliament creates laws and the courts apply them and in that application, case laws are created.

It does not matter how detailed a law is, there will be circumstances where it is not clear exactly how the law should be applied. Case law sets precedents to clarify how those circumstances should be applied.

It is the courts job to apply the law, not Parliament. Parliament created prorogation. The courts apply it.

In this case the PM applied something to prorogation that is not what prorogation was intended for.

I have my limits.

The ruling was to stop the PM from setting a precedent, one that would breach many other constitutional laws.

You could argue that ruling in itself set a precedent, but it would be better described as it prevented a new precedent from being set and it maintained the status quo as to what prorogation is for and its limits.

Michael Gove tells LBC Radio in an interview "The Prime Minister is a born winner"

Hate to see him losing.

Jacob Rees-Mogg says that the Supreme Court judgment amounted to a ‘constitutional coup’.

He also described it as ‘the most extraordinary overthrowing of the constitution’.

A reminder:

NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL COUP:
Trying to silence Parliament
Lying to the Queen
Suspending democracy
Breaking the rule of law

CONSTITUTIONAL COUP:
Obeying the law

Judging by Johnson's performance yesterday, Gove dropped an 'h'.