Originally Posted by DinkyDoobie:
“She's a liar and a fraud.”
“She's a liar and a fraud.”
Oh dear.
Supreme Court Brexit Appeal
13 of 33
Originally Posted by LakieLady:
“I'm mystified as to why people struggle to get this.
It would set such a dangerous precedent.”
“I'm mystified as to why people struggle to get this.
It would set such a dangerous precedent.”
Why do you think the government withdrawing from treaties is dangerous but not entering into them?
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“The Judges of the Supreme Court have the same expertise or lack of it as the High Court Judges. My response was to a poster who thought the Supreme Court Judges to be more expert in law.”
“The Judges of the Supreme Court have the same expertise or lack of it as the High Court Judges. My response was to a poster who thought the Supreme Court Judges to be more expert in law.”
And the silliest post of the year award goes to...
Yep, its you.
None of the High Court, Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court Judges suffer from a "lack of expertise" in the law. Surely not even you can truly believe that.
Well, I accept that you might "believe" it in the same way that I've come across many deluded "lunatics in person" in my professional career who have somehow formed the view that the British legal system exists for no other purpose than to persecute them at the behest of shadowy political elites.
This outlook is perhaps better known as "mental illness".
How do you think judges are promoted to the Supreme Court? Please don't tell me it's because you've formed the view that the British legal system exists for no other purpose than to persecute your cause at the behest of shadowy political elites...
Originally Posted by DinkyDoobie:
“Why do you think the government withdrawing from treaties is dangerous but not entering into them?”
“Why do you think the government withdrawing from treaties is dangerous but not entering into them?”
Because it enters into them via primary legislation and must exit via the same mechnism...
Shock horror...
Originally Posted by DinkyDoobie:
“The lead claimant will also lose the right to rely on directly effective EU law rights in the English courts to interpret, or to override, other legislation enacted by Parliament.
She's a liar and a fraud.”
“The lead claimant will also lose the right to rely on directly effective EU law rights in the English courts to interpret, or to override, other legislation enacted by Parliament.
She's a liar and a fraud.”
By resorting to a personal insult against someone exercising her legal right to go to court, you've just lost your entire argument. Case dismissed.
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“They were appointed to the Supreme court they are not any more expert than any other Judge however what they are being asked to do is critique other Judges, their colleagues, decision.”
“They were appointed to the Supreme court they are not any more expert than any other Judge however what they are being asked to do is critique other Judges, their colleagues, decision.”
Originally Posted by Beanybun:
“They're appointed on the recommendation of section committee, from across the judicial process I.e. effectively by their peers, not politicians. Who do you think should be the arbiter if this? Theresa May?”
“They're appointed on the recommendation of section committee, from across the judicial process I.e. effectively by their peers, not politicians. Who do you think should be the arbiter if this? Theresa May?
”
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“BIB
Did I say otherwise?
If I were Theresa May I wouldn't have appealed the decision I would have tabled an emergency motion and asked Parliament to vote immediately.”
“BIB
Did I say otherwise?
If I were Theresa May I wouldn't have appealed the decision I would have tabled an emergency motion and asked Parliament to vote immediately.”
Originally Posted by Beanybun:
“Fair enough, but your point was what exactly
I agree with you re Tessie re the Appeal, which seems pointless and the result inevitable, though I'm pretty sure if she proceeded as you suggest, we'd be in court now arguing about the validity of said bill; at the very least a much stronger chance of it being rejected.
The fundamental problem here is that we the public want to see the shape of Tessie's Brexit. And suddenly she's come on all shy...”
“Fair enough, but your point was what exactly
I agree with you re Tessie re the Appeal, which seems pointless and the result inevitable, though I'm pretty sure if she proceeded as you suggest, we'd be in court now arguing about the validity of said bill; at the very least a much stronger chance of it being rejected.
The fundamental problem here is that we the public want to see the shape of Tessie's Brexit. And suddenly she's come on all shy...”
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“The Judges of the Supreme Court have the same expertise or lack of it as the High Court Judges. My response was to a poster who thought the Supreme Court Judges to be more expert in law.”
“The Judges of the Supreme Court have the same expertise or lack of it as the High Court Judges. My response was to a poster who thought the Supreme Court Judges to be more expert in law.”
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“You have completely missed the point of course.”
“You have completely missed the point of course.”
Originally Posted by Aftershow:
“So you're still asserting that the process of appointment to the Supreme Court is simply a lottery?”
“So you're still asserting that the process of appointment to the Supreme Court is simply a lottery?”
No my point was they are no more expert than the High Court Judges. All Judges are expert in Law I presume otherwise they would not be Judges. It is just a higher court named Supreme.
Please see posts above.
Now go and Troll someone else.
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“So the poster says, I'd have bet money on the judges agreeing with Mrs. Miller lawyers' position and ruling how they did, just as I fully expect the same result from the supreme court.”
“So the poster says, I'd have bet money on the judges agreeing with Mrs. Miller lawyers' position and ruling how they did, just as I fully expect the same result from the supreme court.”
One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they had any affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“By resorting to a personal insult, you've just lost your entire argument. Case dismissed.”
“By resorting to a personal insult, you've just lost your entire argument. Case dismissed.”
It isn't an insult. She is on record stating that she values parliamentary sovereignty but the council acting on her behalf are making arguments that she will lose the ability to override and challenge legislation passed by parliament.
Either she's a liar and a fraud or her council are misrepresenting her.
What does she want? does she want to be able to use EU law to override parliament, does she want to be an MEP, does she want to be able to appeal the the european court of justice... or does she value parliamentary sovereignty because the people acting on her behalf aren't really making that case.
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.”
“One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.”
Back to the conspiracy theories I see
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“Now go and Troll someone else.”
“Now go and Troll someone else.”
Don't make daft points, and then you won't be challenged on them, and then you won't have to resort to accusing people of trolling to get yourself out of it.
Originally Posted by Beanybun:
“And the silliest post of the year award goes to...
Yep, its you.
None of the High Court, Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court Judges suffer from a "lack of expertise" in the law. Surely not even you can truly believe that.
Well, I accept that you might "believe" it in the same way that I've come across many deluded "lunatics in person" in my professional career who have somehow formed the view that the British legal system exists for no other purpose than to persecute them at the behest of shadowy political elites.
This outlook is perhaps better known as "mental illness". ”
“And the silliest post of the year award goes to...
Yep, its you.
None of the High Court, Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court Judges suffer from a "lack of expertise" in the law. Surely not even you can truly believe that.
Well, I accept that you might "believe" it in the same way that I've come across many deluded "lunatics in person" in my professional career who have somehow formed the view that the British legal system exists for no other purpose than to persecute them at the behest of shadowy political elites.
This outlook is perhaps better known as "mental illness". ”
. Spot-on
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“They were appointed to the Supreme court they are not any more expert than any other Judge however what they are being asked to do is critique other Judges, their colleagues, decision.”
“They were appointed to the Supreme court they are not any more expert than any other Judge however what they are being asked to do is critique other Judges, their colleagues, decision.”
a) More sharp legal minds means less chance of getting it wrong.
b) The evidence and how it is presented is not all the same
c) they can choose to answer questions not asked of the Divisional Court
It's not *just* a "critique [of] other Judges, their colleagues, decision", it is more than that.
Originally Posted by DinkyDoobie:
“Why do you think the government withdrawing from treaties is dangerous but not entering into them?”
“Why do you think the government withdrawing from treaties is dangerous but not entering into them?”
They are attempting to use the powers vested in the monarch to overturn the will of parliament.
Surely you can see that is constitutionally rotten?
If they want to withdraw from the EU, they need to go out the same way they came in - through parliament.
The authority of an unelected monarch should not be used to strip British citizens of rights granted to them by parliament. This is not the 17th century.
Originally Posted by DinkyDoobie:
“Explain. They're her council, acting on her behalf.”
“Explain. They're her council, acting on her behalf.”
Explain what? It's self-evident that you're making yourself look silly by having to resort to personal abuse.
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they had any affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.”
“One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they had any affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.”
Best go buff that tin foil hat with some weapons grade repel-polish!
Originally Posted by Aftershow:
“Back to the conspiracy theories I see”
“Back to the conspiracy theories I see
”
No. Just expressing a viewpoint. If you were in court defending something you believed in but the Government didn't, you'd feel mightily heartened if all the judges hearing your case shared your belief.
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“No my point was they are no more expert than the High Court Judges. All Judges are expert in Law I presume otherwise they would not be Judges. It is just a higher court named Supreme.
Please see posts above.
Now go and Troll someone else.”
“No my point was they are no more expert than the High Court Judges. All Judges are expert in Law I presume otherwise they would not be Judges. It is just a higher court named Supreme.
Please see posts above.
Now go and Troll someone else.”
Errr....
I have no words...
Still, if this is the level of Brexiteer debate, it shouldn't be too hard to fool them into thinking we've left the EU...
Originally Posted by Beanybun:
“And the silliest post of the year award goes to...
Yep, its you.
None of the High Court, Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court Judges suffer from a "lack of expertise" in the law. Surely not even you can truly believe that.
Well, I accept that you might "believe" it in the same way that I've come across many deluded "lunatics in person" in my professional career who have somehow formed the view that the British legal system exists for no other purpose than to persecute them at the behest of shadowy political elites.
This outlook is perhaps better known as "mental illness".
How do you think judges are promoted to the Supreme Court? Please don't tell me it's because you've formed the view that the British legal system exists for no other purpose than to persecute your cause at the behest of shadowy political elites...”
“And the silliest post of the year award goes to...
Yep, its you.
None of the High Court, Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court Judges suffer from a "lack of expertise" in the law. Surely not even you can truly believe that.
Well, I accept that you might "believe" it in the same way that I've come across many deluded "lunatics in person" in my professional career who have somehow formed the view that the British legal system exists for no other purpose than to persecute them at the behest of shadowy political elites.
This outlook is perhaps better known as "mental illness".
How do you think judges are promoted to the Supreme Court? Please don't tell me it's because you've formed the view that the British legal system exists for no other purpose than to persecute your cause at the behest of shadowy political elites...
”
You are crazy it was a caveat.
Stop trolling me.
Originally Posted by Aftershow:
“Explain what? It's self-evident that you're making yourself look silly by having to resort to personal abuse.”
“Explain what? It's self-evident that you're making yourself look silly by having to resort to personal abuse.”
When someone says they're standing up for parliamentary sovereignty and then goes to court and argues the point that they will lose the ability to override parliament i think that gives me carte blanche to call them a liar.
Originally Posted by DinkyDoobie:
“ Either she's a liar and a fraud or her council are misrepresenting her.
What does she want?”
“ Either she's a liar and a fraud or her council are misrepresenting her.
What does she want?”
She wants Parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the Government's intention to trigger Article 50. She is fully entitled to go to court on that without having personal insults (or far worse in some quarters) thrown at her.
Just stick to the legal arguments, it's a legal case.
Originally Posted by DinkyDoobie:
“When someone says they're standing up for parliamentary sovereignty and then goes to court and argues the point that they will lose the ability to override parliament i think that gives me carte blanche to call them a liar.”
“When someone says they're standing up for parliamentary sovereignty and then goes to court and argues the point that they will lose the ability to override parliament i think that gives me carte blanche to call them a liar.”
It's not a case of overriding Parliament, because Parliament consented to the supremacy of EU law.
Between this, your assertion about the ECHR, and the schooling you've had from HR Guru this afternoon, you're not doing very well on this law stuff are you?
Originally Posted by Beanybun:
“Errr....
I have no words...
Still, if this is the level of Brexiteer debate, it shouldn't be too hard to fool them into thinking we've left the EU...”
“Errr....
I have no words...
Still, if this is the level of Brexiteer debate, it shouldn't be too hard to fool them into thinking we've left the EU...
”
Would be the first time you have no words.
You are now on ignore and reported.
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they had any affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.”
“One only had to look up the judges and see their links and their interests across the EU and/or with people who they had any affiliation with with regards to the EU to make a rational viewpoint that they would side with Gina Miller.”
For goodness sake. They are not trying to stop Brexit. They are making sure it proceeds according to the constitutional conventions of Britain. In through parliament, out through parliament. The monarch does not have the right to remove the rights of British citizens.
If you think about it, if May was permitted to use the Royal Prerogative, a future government might be able to nix the procedure by arguing it was not done correctly in accordance with out constitutional conventions (which is a requirement of article 50) and stop Brexit in its tracks, forever.
You should be glad the judges are making sure the i's are dotted and the t's crossed.
Originally Posted by luckylegs:
“Would be the first time you have no words.
You are now on ignore and reported.”
“Would be the first time you have no words.
You are now on ignore and reported.”
Overreaction, much?
But I shan't ignore you because I enjoy reading the opinions of others however strange nor shall I report you, because I've no interest in attempting to shut down rational debate.
Have a nice life.
13 of 33
