Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Brexiteers are judging the Supreme Court justices by their own degraded standards Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I voted to leave the EU, and I agree with Lord Reed's superb dissenting judgment in the Miller case.

    I don't agree with the majority reasoning in the Miller case, but I don't doubt that they looked at the same set of facts and simply came to a different conclusion. This is possible; a friend who is a barrister at a top commercial set and who voted Leave like me supports the majority judgment. Disagreements of this sort are possible, particularly where the arguments are so finely balanced as they indeed were.

    What I find disgusting and nauseating is the reaction by Brexiteers, 99.9% of whom have no legal education and whose opinion on this judgment has about as much worth as my opinion on a paper on molecular biology would. All they know is that they don't like the outcome, and they know that if they were judges, they would just disregard the law and rule according to their own political views and so they assume other people must be the same.

    These people seem to demand that the judges rule according to a form of Brexiteer political correctness; like in the Soviet Union, the judges must rule not according to legal principles but according to the will of the demos (in reality, the will of party apparatchiks / Farage) lest they become "enemies of the people".

    It's sad but true to say that the people who are most vituperative against lawyers, judges and the law in general are the people who are most ignorant about it. It's been popular for centuries for ignorant, stupid people to hate the law and lawyers (despite knowing almost nothing about it), and today we are seeing the continuation of the Jack Cade mentality.

    Lord Reed looked at all the facts and legal principles, and came to the conclusion that the government did not need parliamentary permission to trigger Article 50 (while also emphatically saying that parliament is free at any time to prohibit or place any restriction it liked on the triggering). The other justices looked at the same set of facts and came to a different conclusion. What they all have in common is that they made their decision according to legal principles, following a deep and contemplative legal analysis.

    The Brexiteers who are criticising them know and care nothing for this. All they know is that they disagree with the outcome, and that they think judges should rule according to mob commands rather than law. Our society is the poorer for this mentality having become so prevalent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Would have just been nice to stop all the pissing about and get it over and done with.

    But if the law says we must piss about, piss about we shall.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nauseating? Really?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Would have just been nice to stop all the pissing about and get it over and done with.

    But if the law says we must piss about, piss about we shall.
    I agree. All that will happen is that a bill will go before parliament; it will pass and we'll get on with it.

    The implications of this case are far less than both Brexiteers and Remainers think. May will probably put a one-line bill before the house; "That this parliament authorises the government to trigger Article 50". Remainers will attempt to amend it; that will fail due to support from the eurosceptic left and Northern Irish right and then May will threaten to flood the House of Lords with new peers if the Lords fails to pass it unamended (just like with the Reform Act 1832 when the Lords attempted to block it and the king threatened to create 80 new peers to force it through; the Lords backed down).

    The bill will pass into law and we will get on with the process. Bish, bash, bosh.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    From what I've read the judges are ardent Europhiles, if this wasn't the case I doubt we would be seeing this anti judges attitude.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    From what I've read the judges are ardent Europhiles, if this wasn't the case I doubt we would be seeing this anti judges attitude.
    I haven't actually seen anything in the papers that would support the contention that somehow the judges are fanatical pro-EUers who are so contemptuous of their solemn duty that they concluded that the government didn't need parliamentary permission but decided to rule to allow the claim anyway? Even if it were established that they were europhiles (and I've not seen anything that is particularly creditable to establish that point for the eight in the majority), so what?

    The people on the attack seem to believe that when a case comes before a judge, they say to themselves, "Which side would I prefer won? Which outcome is consistent with my politics? The claimant? Excellent, I hereby rule in favour of the claimant". That's not how the jurisprudential process works. Judges analyse and describe the law as it is, according to parliamentary acts, regulations, caselaw and so on.

    And when they make a decision, as in this case, they write out a detailed judgment precisely recounting the state of the law, the relevant cases and acts of parliament, the history of that area of law, and they methodically go piece-by-piece and explain how they came to the conclusion. It's almost like if they were mathemeticians; they show their working, they show how they completed the equation step-by-step. And so we can see precisely what principles the judges considered and how they applied the law through their judgment. The people attacking them do not seem to understand that; all they know is that they disagree with the outcome, and they assume that if they were judges they would just rule according to their political views and then they expect other people must be like that too.

    It's not a good look for the Leave movement. It comes across as thuggish, authoritarian and threatening. It comes across as though they want to intimidate judges into ruling a certain way or otherwise be branded as "enemies of the people"; a classic communist intimidation tactic.
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by demaistre)
      From what I've read the judges are ardent Europhiles, if this wasn't the case I doubt we would be seeing this anti judges attitude.
      Well, look, I think when these rulings are decided, I think people obviously quite rightly, both for and against, say all sorts of things - which either turn out, or not turn out, to be true.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AlexanderHam)
      I voted to leave the EU, and I agree with Lord Reed's superb dissenting judgment in the Miller case.

      I don't agree with the majority reasoning in the Miller case, but I don't doubt that they looked at the same set of facts and simply came to a different conclusion. This is possible; a friend who is a barrister at a top commercial set and who voted Leave like me supports the majority judgment. Disagreements of this sort are possible, particularly where the arguments are so finely balanced as they indeed were.

      What I find disgusting and nauseating is the reaction by Brexiteers, 99.9% of whom have no legal education and whose opinion on this judgment has about as much worth as my opinion on a paper on molecular biology would. All they know is that they don't like the outcome, and they know that if they were judges, they would just disregard the law and rule according to their own political views and so they assume other people must be the same.

      These people seem to demand that the judges rule according to a form of Brexiteer political correctness; like in the Soviet Union, the judges must rule not according to legal principles but according to the will of the demos (in reality, the will of party apparatchiks / Farage) lest they become "enemies of the people".

      It's sad but true to say that the people who are most vituperative against lawyers, judges and the law in general are the people who are most ignorant about it. It's been popular for centuries for ignorant, stupid people to hate the law and lawyers (despite knowing almost nothing about it), and today we are seeing the continuation of the Jack Cade mentality.

      Lord Reed looked at all the facts and legal principles, and came to the conclusion that the government did not need parliamentary permission to trigger Article 50 (while also emphatically saying that parliament is free at any time to prohibit or place any restriction it liked on the triggering). The other justices looked at the same set of facts and came to a different conclusion. What they all have in common is that they made their decision according to legal principles, following a deep and contemplative legal analysis.

      The Brexiteers who are criticising them know and care nothing for this. All they know is that they disagree with the outcome, and that they think judges should rule according to mob commands rather than law. Our society is the poorer for this mentality having become so prevalent.
      I love how some people complain about ''unelected judges!''.

      Like... yeah. That's the point!

      You don't want politically motivated people interpreting the law.

      Although in Brexit Britain if it's not anti-EU then it's automatically undemocratic and therefore it is wrong.
      • Very Important Poster
      Offline

      19
      (Original post by Willy Pete)
      Would have just been nice to stop all the pissing about and get it over and done with.

      But if the law says we must piss about, piss about we shall.
      Why is doing things legally pissing about? Dont you believe in due process?
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by 999tigger)
      Why is doing things legally pissing about? Dont you believe in due process?
      I do believe in due process but they really should have looked into this before the referendum so if the it did go in Leave favour we wouldn't have all this pissing about. Then the politicians could crack on and stop wasting time and money (but who knows how much extra this has cost because they won't release the figures, I'm guessing it wasn't cheap).
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      Words could not describe the joy i'd feel if the decision was overturned, it won't but heres to wishful thinking.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      Now this frog faced tosser is claiming that sovereignty doesn't lie with Parliament.

      http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenter...reignty-means/

      Isn't that what he's been harping on about(among other things) for years?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AlexanderHam)
      I haven't actually seen anything in the papers that would support the contention that somehow the judges are fanatical pro-EUers who are so contemptuous of their solemn duty that they concluded that the government didn't need parliamentary permission but decided to rule to allow the claim anyway? Even if it were established that they were europhiles (and I've not seen anything that is particularly creditable to establish that point for the eight in the majority), so what?

      The people on the attack seem to believe that when a case comes before a judge, they say to themselves, "Which side would I prefer won? Which outcome is consistent with my politics? The claimant? Excellent, I hereby rule in favour of the claimant". That's not how the jurisprudential process works. Judges analyse and describe the law as it is, according to parliamentary acts, regulations, caselaw and so on.

      And when they make a decision, as in this case, they write out a detailed judgment precisely recounting the state of the law, the relevant cases and acts of parliament, the history of that area of law, and they methodically go piece-by-piece and explain how they came to the conclusion. It's almost like if they were mathemeticians; they show their working, they show how they completed the equation step-by-step. And so we can see precisely what principles the judges considered and how they applied the law through their judgment. The people attacking them do not seem to understand that; all they know is that they disagree with the outcome, and they assume that if they were judges they would just rule according to their political views and then they expect other people must be like that too.

      It's not a good look for the Leave movement. It comes across as thuggish, authoritarian and threatening. It comes across as though they want to intimidate judges into ruling a certain way or otherwise be branded as "enemies of the people"; a classic communist intimidation tactic.
      If someone actually cares about a major political issue unless they are superhuman they are going to have bias cloud their viewpoint, to think otherwise is naive.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Yaboi)
      Words could not describe the joy i'd feel if the decision was overturned, it won't but heres to wishful thinking.
      So you are in favour of a dismissal of the democratic result?
      • Very Important Poster
      Offline

      19
      (Original post by demaistre)
      If someone actually cares about a major political issue unless they are superhuman they are going to have bias cloud their viewpoint, to think otherwise is naive.
      Are you saying the judges were biased and you believe the judgment is wrong?
      Have you read it?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by 999tigger)
      Are you saying the judges were biased and you believe the judgment is wrong?
      Have you read it?
      Unless they were super human or literally didn't care about the isssue yes, but more importantly I believe a foreigner has brought a case to court that cost the British taxpayer God knows how much, and has created a political storm for basically nothing.
      • Very Important Poster
      Offline

      19
      (Original post by Willy Pete)
      I do believe in due process but they really should have looked into this before the referendum so if the it did go in Leave favour we wouldn't have all this pissing about. Then the politicians could crack on and stop wasting time and money (but who knows how much extra this has cost because they won't release the figures, I'm guessing it wasn't cheap).
      Why has it cost extra? They have expedited the issue and its been speedily looked at. You would normally have to wait years. Considering its a matter of major constitutional law, then the cost would be tiny.

      They could have looked at it before, but only the judges can give the decision.

      The delay from triggering article 50 isnt because of this, its becayse they havent figured out what to do. I agree it would have been infinitely better if they had so that people voting in the referendum knew what Brexit meant in more detail and then we would all have known the things that would be put into place.
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AlexanderHam)
      May will threaten to flood the House of Lords with new peers if the Lords fails to pass it unamended (just like with the Reform Act 1832 when the Lords attempted to block it and the king threatened to create 80 new peers to force it through; the Lords backed down).
      I do not know whether there are enough "ditchers" to block Brexit in the Lords, but if there are, the precedents from 1832 and 1910 are that there will have to be a general election on Brexit if May wants to create peers. I would be surprised if the Queen would give May the necessary assurance on easier terms than Grey or Asquith.Otherwise May will have to wait a year to allow the Parliament Act to take its course.

      I think May would wait on the Parliament Act. Capitulation in the face of a viable i.e. royal threat to create peers or actual creation of peers will inevitably mean House of Lords reform. I think May would rather attempt to bring peace to the Middle East than start down the road of Lords reform.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by 999tigger)
      Why has it cost extra? They have expedited the issue and its been speedily looked at. You would normally have to wait years. Considering its a matter of major constitutional law, then the cost would be tiny.

      They could have looked at it before, but only the judges can give the decision.

      The delay from triggering article 50 isnt because of this, its becayse they havent figured out what to do. I agree it would have been infinitely better if they had so that people voting in the referendum knew what Brexit meant in more detail and then we would all have known the things that would be put into place.
      Legal professionals don't work for free and I doubt they did it all in house.

      Its just a big ****show. I want it out of the way so we can focus on actual Brexit and not whether or not someone is going to try and block it.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by h1347698)
      So you are in favour of a dismissal of the democratic result?
      No, but i'd be happy(emotionally) if it happened in this situation. (if that makes sense)
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: January 25, 2017
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.