The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
I Didn't Know the UK Even Had a Supreme Court
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post:

U.K. Supreme Court rules Prime Minister Boris Johnson suspended Parliament illegally
Britain’s top court rules Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament ‘unlawful’

By Karla Adam and William Booth September 24, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. PDT

LONDON — Britain’s highest court dealt a serious blow Tuesday to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, ruling that his controversial decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, in a landmark judgment that could have implications for Johnson’s future and the country’s departure from the European Union. …

But in one of the highest-profile cases to come before Britain’s Supreme Court, 11 justices ruled unanimously that it was Johnson who was obstructing democracy. …

Legal scholars in Britain said the judgment was historic — on par with Marbury v. Madison, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most famous cases, which established the principle of judicial review.

The British Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument that suspending Parliament was a political and not a legal matter. The court was emphatic that the executive does not have unfettered power.

To tell you the truth, I had never heard before that the UK even had a Supreme Court. It appears that the UK Supreme Court dates from 2009. Whether the legislation intended for it to have such powers or whether it just today made up new powers for itself like the US Supreme Court did in Marbury v. Madison is 1803 is beyond my knowledge.

Basically, since 1688 or so, the UK has not had a system of checks & balances to slow the exercise of power. Instead, it’s been organized on the model of a pirate ship in which the captain (the monarch’s chief minister) has tremendous powers, so long as he maintains the confidence of the crew enough to not be overthrown.

One paradox of this system is that a prime minister can engage in vast constitutional innovations, such as setting up a Supreme Court or inventing a referendum under which Scotland could leave the UK, pretty much on his own whim.

 
Hide 157 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[344] • Disclaimer says:

    But a more important question is: when will the UK Supreme Court take up the case of Emmett Till?

    • Agree: Enemy of Earth
    • Replies: @Cortes
    , @Anonymous
  2. To tell you the truth, I had never heard before that the UK even had a Supreme Court. It appears that the UK Supreme Court dates from 2009.

    Made up of nine Lords a-leaping and three English hens.

    • LOL: RadicalCenter
  3. I remember when it came about, Justice Scalia went to the ceremony as an honored guest. IIRC, he seemed to think it was a good idea for the UK to have one, and Justice Scalia’s opinion on judicial organization and administration are not to be taken lightly.

    That’s because one of the weird quirks about Scalia’s philosophy was that one of the courses he taught in law school was on the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), of which he was an expert.

    The APA is the late New Deal law that basically set up the entire administrative state quasi-judicial appeal process we know in the federal government today (e.g administrative law judges hear your social security claims, not real Article III judges, and appeals stay within the agency for several rounds before you can finally appeal to a federal Article III court).

    Scalia would’ve ruled the APA illegal at the start, but because the country had become entirely dependent on it by the time he became a lawyer he just became an expert on all its details.

    Anyway, this is all to demonstrate that Scalia’s concern about judicial organization probably was part of his support of the Brits getting their own supreme court.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    , @Jimi
    , @Dan Hayes
    , @anonn
  4. A UK view. Looks like Tony Blair builded better than he knew (from his perspective) when he founded the SC. My emboldening.

    http://www.cityunslicker.co.uk/2019/09/i-was-only-away-week.html

    The legal ruling from the Supreme court today is simply stupendous. That it is unanimous is the most interesting part. After all, they have declared the Prime Minister has acted unlawfully in an area where there is no law. The court could easily have ruled that this matter was a matter for politicians. Indeed, in the not too distant past this is exactly what would have happened.

    However, this is today and today he Supreme Court has made a big land grab to become the ultimate arbiter in the Country, above the Queen. In many ways, though it will be a while before people twig it, this is the end of the Monarchy entirely. No longer does the Queen serve a constitutional role at all, her advisers have not power nor authority. Yes, we have long known that Parliament is supreme, but now with the Courts too above the legislature why have a head of state other than the Prime Minister? The Court is exercising the powers of the Monarchy from now on. Why waste money on the Monarchy anymore.

  5. Anon[429] • Disclaimer says:

    When a small nation that functions just fine via consensus burdens itself with an extra layer of checks just when its society is seriously fragmenting–for the first time ever–because it has a large amount of newcomers arrive with no loyalty or respect for that state, its people, its laws, culture, or customs, adding an extra layer of checks to government is just asking for trouble. This renders the state ineffectual and incapable of taking any steps to get out of a crisis, which is exactly we are seeing.

    Were the Romans emperors dumb enough to create a Supreme Court to contest their decisions just when their empire was collapsing under invasions by barbarian hordes? Heck no.

    The British government cannot allow a Supreme Court to overthrow the will of the people as expressed by a referendum. It’s either a democracy, or it isn’t. If a Supreme Court becomes a tool of oppression against the majority, it has to go. The US Supreme Court usually is careful to stay out of matters as serious as this, in fact. They avoid weighing in on matters about long-established presidential practices (you can consider the PM’s decision to prorogue Parliament a long established right of the PM), and they don’t try to make or influence foreign policy. The US Supreme Court has lasted so long because they mostly have enough sense to stay out of meddling with long-established congressional and presidential powers that are not their business.

  6. Twinkie says:

    Basically, since 1688 or so, the UK has not had a system of checks & balances to slow the exercise of power. Instead, it’s been organized on the model of a pirate ship in which the captain (the monarch’s chief minister) has tremendous powers, so long as he maintains the confidence of the crew enough to not be overthrown.

    When I was younger – high school and college – I favored this style of parliamentary democracy. Why not let the winner of a parliamentary election that reflected the mandate of the voters pass whatever laws the winning party wished and get its way and let the voters be the judge, I thought. Let each side run its experiment.

    As a young parent, I began to see the wisdom of our American system of checks and balances that gravitated to status quo and protected stability. I considered the Founding Fathers unparalleled political geniuses.

    As I have become a highly discontented middle aged man now (c. 50), I have lost much of my faith in the latter, and am beginning to have more and more Francoist fantasies (probably more than fantasies, but for my oath to the Constitution, as oaths are sacred to me).

    I shudder to think what my thinking would be in my 60’s and 70’s, if I get to live to those years.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @MattinLA
  7. guest says:

    11 judges in Star Chamber on high…now *that’s* “democracy!”

    HEY, don’t they have a monarch who can decide the Popular Will for them? One Is better than eleven In The Democratic upside-down.

  8. The SCUK was a reform foisted on the UK by the EU, which realised that an “independent” judiciary was the best way to impose rule of the oligarchs was to create kritarchy. Prior to that, the supreme UK judicial function was provided by the House of Lords.

    Basically, since 1688 or so, the UK has not had a system of checks & balances to slow the exercise of power. Instead, it’s been organized on the model of a pirate ship in which the captain (the monarch’s chief minister) has tremendous powers, so long as he maintains the confidence of the crew enough to not be overthrown.

    Sorry, Steve, but this is rubbish. The UK courts have increasingly intervened by judicial review to impose limits on unreasonable or caprcious exercise of executive or administrative state powers and processes. However, until now, the judiciary has avoided straying into matters political. This really does seem to be a coup, certainly a serious challenge to UK Constitutional order, and it very much shows that getting out of the EU is imperative.

    BTW, how’s that Check-and-Balance thingy really working out for the nearly re-conquisted USA?

    • Replies: @Fen Tiger
  9. a reader says:

    In any case, it hardly shares any common points with the SCOTUS:

    Nick Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers, served as the inaugural President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

    His maternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews who had eloped to Britain from Alexandria.

    David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury, served as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017.

    His uncle was the noted rabbi Herman N. Neuberger.

    Son of Albert Neuberger.

  10. jim jones says:

    The woman who brought the case is an Indian immigrant:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Miller

    • Replies: @Altai
    , @Anonymous
  11. LondonBob says:

    Tony Blair set up the ‘supreme’ Court so the far left could use the courts to implement their unpopular positions.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/the-supreme-courts-decision-is-a-constitutional-outrage/

    Pretty extraordinary the extremes and constitutional damage that the remainers are prepared to do to try and stop Brexit, they make the Trump derangement crowd look sane.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  12. The UK Supreme Court was introduced by the Blair government. Supreme Courts are great for bypassing democracy in certain situations.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  13. Mr. Anon says:

    They reputedly also have a “Constitution”, at least The Economist was always gassing on about it, but that just seems to be a fairy tale too.

  14. LondonBob says:

    Don’t worry Brexit will happen, the current set of MPs won’t call an election because they know they will be replaced by the people with MPs who will implement Brexit. For the Conservative Party it is an existential question, as it is for the PM. Personally I think the Queen needs to step in and dissolve Parliament but I am sure Boris still has some tricks up his sleeve, the ratcheting up of the remainer campaign to remove him suggests so. On the plus side the media and political class are being thoroughly discredited.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @peterike
  15. Anonymous[341] • Disclaimer says:

    First things first. The UK Deep State never expected Brexit, never accepted Brexit – and have never respected Brexit.
    It goes without saying that The Economist magazine, right from the get-go was the biggest and most ferocious enemy of Brexit.

    The UK, of course, has no constitution. The system that evolved from feudalism is that of ‘parliamentary supremacy’ that is *there is no higher authority* in the UK other than parliament. This includes the judiciary. That being said, there is a distinction between Her Majesty’s Government led by Her Majesty’s Prime Minister and Parliament. The office of Prime Minister and Government acts under the concept of ‘Royal Prerogative’ in that the exercise of executive power is said to come from the ‘Queen in Parliament’, hence defacto the Prime Minister acts under Royal – that is state, power. Traditionally, up till yesterday, the notion was that the internal workings of Parliament were ‘not justiciable’ in that Parliament policed itself by honoring customs and traditions – ‘form and precedent’ as it’s known in the jargon. The time honored way of Parliament to deal with a deadlocked dispute with Government was to call a ‘vote of confidence’. Government losing this vote automatically leads to a dissolution of Parliament and a General Election.
    In this particular Brexit case Parliament twice rejected a vote of confidence in the Government – just in order to frustrate Brexit and for Party advantage. Thus what we are seeing here isca Deep State stitch up pure and simple.

    Of course Tony Blair set up the Supreme Court. Basically he tried to take the Labour Party from its workerist socialist roots and turn it into a Democrat Party manque.

    An urge to imitate America in everything is always a diagnostic of a fourth rate mind in UK politics.

    • Replies: @Gordo
  16. Sometimes, you just have to go Cromwell.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  17. Even in Britain, very little was said about the setting up of the Supreme Court, given it was such a historic change. I believe it had something to do with the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights forbids judges from exercising political power, and seeing as the House of Lords was both the upper chamber of parliament and the highest court of appeal, the two functions needed to be separated.

    This all became necessary because after they got into power in 1997, New Labour passed the Human Rights Act which brought the Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  18. @Twinkie

    I think many intelligent men have made journey’s similar to yours Twinkie.

    I think the founders did a stunning job–yet to be even equaled, much less surpassed, despite its example. The Civil War and our race problem did considerable damage to our Constitutional order.
    But overall we were still doing well with it when i was born.

    The real problem is the that we now have elites who are alienated from both the values and cultural norms behind the founding. They are hostile to republican government and the American people, and have basically conducted a coup against the Constitution and the American nation.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
  19. I too, did not know that Britain even *had* a Supreme court until recently reading Derb’s column –
    “…may the filthy thing rot in hell.”

    https://vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-cosmopolitans-vs-communitarians-what-the-battle-over-brexit-means

  20. @AnotherDad

    elites who are alienated from both the values and cultural norms behind the founding. They are hostile to republican government and the American people, and have basically conducted a coup against the Constitution and the American nation.

    The good news is that real Americans are finally standing up and demanding Trump needs to be impeached for violating the Constitution repeatedly. Anti-American elites like Peter Thiel, the Kochs, Murdoch and Adelson need to be driven out, I agree. Too much of our politics is driven by billionaires playing games.

  21. Cortes says:
    @anon

    Well…

    Speaking for myself, what with yellow school buses (seeing more and more around), Proms (Vale dances back in the day), adoption of US pronunciation (“heard it on the NOOZ” truly rips my knitting) and Supreme Court, I look forward to the right to bear arms…

    C’mon Parliament, er, Congress.

  22. Fen Tiger says:
    @The Alarmist

    This really does seem to be a coup, … and it very much shows that getting out of the EU is imperative.

    Quite so. Only a few weeks ago, I was telling my 93 y.o. mother that the Remainers would stop at nothing – nothing – to prevent Brexit. And here we are.

    Now we’re back in the lead-up to the English Civil war (David Starkey explains all this very well here). Second time as farce, obviously (I hope)!

    What’s next? Proscription of the Brexit Party? The internment of Farage et al.? The importation of EU gendarmes?

  23. @Kronos

    – and you’re probably privy to this classic:

    “Churchill was in the lavatory in the House of Commons and his secretary knocked on the door and said: Excuse me Prime Minister, but the Lord Privy Seal wishes to speak to you. After a pause Churchill replied: Tell His Lordship: I’m sealed on The Privy and can only deal with one shit at a time”
    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/807442-churchill-was-in-the-lavatory-in-the-house-of-commons

    I don’t doubt that there are more than one shit in the British Supreme Court.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  24. Gordo says:

    The UK Supreme Court is the court of Tony Blair, it is an un-British aberration, an enemy of democracy.

    The appointed House of Lords is the house of Tony Blair, another institution inimical of democracy.

    At least the hereditary Lord’s ancestors won their seats with the battleaxe, Blair’s ‘Lords’ won theirs by blowing some cabinet minister sausage.

  25. Gordo says:
    @Anonymous

    First things first. The UK Deep State never expected Brexit, never accepted Brexit – and have never respected Brexit.

    The UK Deep State believes that membership of NATO, in whatever form or by whatever name, is critical to the security of the UK.

    I’m not sure that they think the same about membership of the EU.

    It’s the creepy metropolitan elite who can’t accept Brexit, they overlap the Deep State but are not identical.

  26. A former Supreme Court judge explains the workings of democracy to us intellectual pygmies:

  27. @al gore rhythms

    This all became necessary because after they got into power in 1997, New Labour passed the Human Rights Act which brought the Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

    Didn’t it also have something to do with Pinochet’s case ending up before the Law Lords, or was that just a coincidence?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Arrest_and_court_cases_in_the_United_Kingdom

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  28. 64000 dollar question: Which existing statute did the PM break?

    Answer: None.

    Yet another example of the judiciary taking on the role of the legislature.

  29. degsy88 says:

    The Supreme Court is more or less just a new name for the Law Lords collectively, following their move from the House of Lords to Somerset House; their function and powers have changed hardly at all. Note that when the House of Lords was the highest UK court, it was only the Law Lords (the same people who would now make up the Supreme Court) not the House of Lords as a whole that ruled. The whole change had nothing to do with the EU and was more an example of Blair’s sad Americophilia,

    The UK has always had a constitution, and like that of literally every other modern state, including the US, this has always had both written and unwritten elements (see e.g. Bagehot’s famous book on the subject). When you think about it, this is essential, as written documents can’t interpret themselves so that there will always be conventions concerning how the documents are interpreted and applied. One could have a wholly unwritten constitution, but not a wholly written one. The written elements of the UK constitution include Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights. Latterly and more controversially it has been asserted that the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act also form part of the written element of the UK constitution.

    The judgment is not very long and is quite clearly written. Commenters could benefit from reading it at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html

    All this to say, it is not that the judgment is not surprising and of great constitutional significance. It is hard, though, to see how one could see it as political except in the sense that literally everything is political. Further, it is not the name and location of the highest appellate court in the UK that is really the problem except in the sense that some Americans think it is cool to express ignorance about foreign countries’ constitutional arrangements. Englishmen are often guilty of this idiocy too to be fair..

  30. LondonBob says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Oliver Cromwell: ‘In the name of God, go!’ speech dismissing Rump Parliament – 1653

    20 April 1653, London, England

    It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,

    which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

    Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

    Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

    Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

    Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

    Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

    Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

    Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

    I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

    Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

    In the name of God, go!

    • Replies: @Alden
  31. Bruno says:

    I have been following Lady Hale since long. There is on internet a debate with Ruth Bader Ginsburg were you see how extremely clever she is.

    Her working memory and verbal IQ is at 155 in my guesstimate. Ginsburg would be around 145 at that time.
    (Always for their age, IQ is a relative measurement)

    Ginsburg is very gracious in showing her admiration. She gives Hale a lot of space. Hale has a bit of verbose Aspie side, lecturing the world (little professors).

    Such admiration on part of Ginsburg doesn’t happen so often ….

    • Replies: @Bruno
  32. It just made up for itself a power to review exercise of the Royal Prerogative and declare it Unlawful based on the motivation of the Prime Minister. It’s pretty breathtaking even for these dark times.

    It’s all about ensuring the Blair Revolution can never be rolled back.

    • Replies: @istevefan
  33. @YetAnotherAnon

    The author is right about the Queen. In moments like this, having a ceremonial head of state is like having a ceremonial, Styrofoam fire extinguisher. Allowing the monarchy to become a useless joke is yet another thing Anglosphere conservatives buggered up over the last sixty years.

  34. @YetAnotherAnon

    To quote The Sex Pistols, “’cause tourists are money”. People will pay to go see the British monarch, but not the British Supreme Court.

  35. degsy88 says:

    The judgment does not turn on the motivation of the Prime Minister but on the effect of an unusually long prorogation in limiting the ability of Parliament to perform its constitutional role of holding the Executive to account, and on the existence or otherwise of a reasonable justification for such a limit (see para 58).

  36. Yes. This English “Supreme Court” business is yet another example of the “meritocratic” “elite” subverting the democratic will of the people. They cooked up this fail safe against the popular will, because it is *necessary,* you see, to protect we, the people, from ourselves.

    Parliament – the House of Commons, the duly elected representatives of the people – – can’t be let to have power without the unelected meritocracy having the final say. The Queen and House of Lords are too aristocratic, not “meritocratic,” so the educated bourgeois elite with proper the credentials had to impose itself upon the people’s representatives, to save them, and guarantee they not go too far off script. No body can be allowed to oppose the Enlightenment.

    That’s he function of the US Supreme Court viz. Congress, the States and localities, as well. The British elite were jealous of our “Republican” courts here stateside, and just couldn’t help but imitate us and “incorporate” judicial review by those truly wise and knowing into their unwritten constitution..

    That’s the entire point behind the EU, as well, incidentally. The European Courts and bureaucracy are the proper representatives of the international bourgeoisie, they are *those who know best,* and no common ignorant selfish people are going to be allowed to frustrate their international utopia.

    The world must be made safe for capital, and those to whom the interest, rents and dividends flow.

    Bourgeois of the World Unite!! You have nothing to lose but union oversight and popular sovereignty!

    Untrammeled free trade, immigration, population control, climate regulation, sexual liberty: The Revolution is far too important to allow the hoi paloi lumpenproles to frustrate.

    The credentialed priestly caste in their black robes know far better than we, they shall brook no dissent..

    • Agree: jim jones
  37. @Simon Tugmutton

    Right, QC, 52% of the electorate cannot have 100% of the spoils.

    48% of the electorate can though!

  38. HonestBl says:

    For anybody interested, Christopher Cadwell (John Derbyshire recommends him in literally all his columns) explained in a recent Claremont expose how this supreme court was sneakily created because of the European union:

    https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happened-yet/

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    , @Romanian
  39. “in one of the highest-profile cases to come before Britain’s Supreme Court, 11 justices ruled unanimously that it was Johnson who was obstructing democracy.”

    Yep, nothing says “democracy” like 11 unelected judges overruling a democratically elected Prime Minister.

    “The court was emphatic that the executive does not have unfettered power.”

    Right, unfettered power is the Supreme Court’s alone. They named it “Supreme” for a reason.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  40. @Anon

    “Were the Romans emperors dumb enough to create a Supreme Court to contest their decisions just when their empire was collapsing under invasions by barbarian hordes? Heck no.”

    I think you missed the trick. The Supreme Court just appointed itself as the emperors.

    [Insert “Look at us. We are the Emperors now!” meme here.]

    “The US Supreme Court usually is careful to stay out of matters as serious as this, in fact. They avoid weighing in on matters about long-established presidential practices (you can consider the PM’s decision to prorogue Parliament a long established right of the PM), and they don’t try to make or influence foreign policy. The US Supreme Court has lasted so long because they mostly have enough sense to stay out of meddling with long-established congressional and presidential powers that are not their business.”

    Historically kinda true, but give them a few more years and it won’t be at all.

    • Agree: bomag
  41. sb says:

    I must admit that if asked what the highest court was in the UK I would have said the House of Lords ( in practise this was a group of senior judges appointed to the House of Lords commonly called the Law Lords ) Guess I haven’t kept up
    Seemed like a system that had passed the test of time . Why change it ?

    Also I would have thought that the British Constitution was a variety of historic legislation and common law precedents and conventions which was only alterable by Parliament . It was in effect non justiciable in substance . I’m out of date again

    Guess British judges have been enviously looking over the Atlantic wanting to tell the Legislature and Executive that we not only decide what the law is but are also the ones who can and do make new law if we want to

    Another victory for the Elites over the People

  42. degsy88 says:

    The court acted to protect parliament’s constitutional role in holding the executive to account by ruling that the use of the Crown’s prerogative powers so as to frustrate parliament’s role through prorogation without good reason was unlawful. That is the opposite of undemocratic.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  43. @YetAnotherAnon

    Unavoidable once a Supreme Court is set up.

    Counterinsurgency

  44. @degsy88

    They invented this – the role of Parliament is to legislate, not to check the Executive.

  45. @Peter Akuleyev

    “The good news is that real Americans are finally standing up and demanding Trump needs to be impeached for violating the Constitution repeatedly.”

    That would explain Trump’s 53% approval rating in Rasmussen, highest since his inauguration.

    • Replies: @Neuday
  46. “…Basically, since 1688 or so, the UK has not had a system of checks & balances to slow the exercise of power. Instead, it’s been organized on the model of a pirate ship in which the captain (the monarch’s chief minister) has tremendous powers, so long as he maintains the confidence of the crew enough to not be overthrown…”

    So we have a path forward. Pirate captain Boris declares the SCUK and all its decisions illegitimate and disbands it effective immediately.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  47. Anonymous[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jon Halpenny

    Tony Blair packed the House of Lords with his allies (creating 203 new life peers), removed the hereditary peers, created the Supreme Court ex nihilo, and massively increased immigration into the UK for the purposes of destroying and overwhelming the native people. Then after leaving office he cashed in to the tune of at least $100 million.

    He is an evil man.

    • Agree: Gordo
  48. Ibound1 says:

    Congratulations UK, you have now made Stalin’s view of democracy into a reality: your vote counts as long as you vote for what your rulers want.

  49. @Simon Tugmutton

    He should stick to writing medieval history

  50. @Steve in Greensboro

    I imagine that a majority of Parliament could abolish the Supreme Court and/or declare its last decision null and void. (Of course, it’s not all clear that Boris commands a majority in Parliament.)

    I don’t believe the UK Supreme Court was created by anything other than a simple majority vote of Parliament. The British don’t have a concept of Constitutional Amendment requiring supermajorities.

    Like I’ve been saying, the British evolved a rather simple if rather alarmingly powerful system of parliamentary majority supremacy. It’s not really designed to provide checks and balances, it’s designed to defeat France (or whomever on the Continent) in battle with rapid, firm decision-making.

    In this century, they’ve been tacking on to it various additions to their system, without having put them through the long process that the U.S. has for constitutional amendments. For example, on this side of the Atlantic, second thoughts derailed the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s as state legislatures took time to think through the implications. In the UK, however, the reality of parliamentary majority supremacy means that the majority can push through fundamental constitutional changes without lengthy debate.

  51. degsy88 says:

    @Simon in London
    Okay, you think that this principle (the role of parliament in holding the executive to account) was not validly discovered. Is it that Bobb v Manning and ex parte Notts County Council didn’t really make use of that principle? I guess you also think that the assertion in para 47 that such a role is implied in some of the material cited at para 44 ( e.g. the Bill of Rights ) is incorrect. Genuinely interested to hear your opinion..

  52. @degsy88

    Parliament to perform its constitutional role of holding the Executive to account, and on the existence or otherwise of a reasonable justification for such a limit

    I’d thought that Parliament, or at least the US Congress, existed to pass or modify or remove laws, and that its function of “holding the Executive to account” was limited to extreme circumstances, such as loss of confidence by the general population in the executive’s fitness to govern.

    And when did “holding the X to account” become a euphemism for “punishing”?

    It would seem to me that we are witnessing a fundamental breakdown in the system of divided government. Such a system can only exist if its actions are limited by commonly understood rules and by precedent. Remember that a democracy is a substitute for civil war, no more, no less. If group in a democracy uses esoteric interpretation of laws and rules to institute policies that the rest of the nation is willing to fight to prevent being implemented, then the civil war, always latent, becomes real. This is the real danger both in the US and the UK right now.

    As usual, zeitgeist being what it is, this is showing up world wide. Authority systems that assume no fundamental disagreements are failing (as above).

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @degsy88
  53. Anonymous[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @Simon Tugmutton

    “52% of the electorate simply cannot have 100% of the spoils.”

    Mohammed H. Allah, these guys are such incredible assholes.

    There was only one question and two possible answers on the Brexit referendum: stay or leave. *Someone* was going to get “100% of the spoils.”

    It’s truly jaw-dropping all the arguments the Remoaners are dragging out against Brexit. They might as well just drag out a mess of dead rotting cats.

    “The young people who will be affected by this didn’t get a vote” – Do they ever get a vote?

    “A minority of the British people voted for Brexit” – They say about an election with the heaviest turnout in almost 25 years.

    “The Brexit guys lied” – Say the fans of politicians like Tony Blair and Ted Kennedy.

    “That election was held over three years ago” – In a system where parliaments can sit for up to five years.

    “All the old people who supported Brexit have croaked, thank God” – Say the humane folks who purport to care about the people.

    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @Altai
  54. Anonymous[349] • Disclaimer says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    Yes, the Lords’ handling of the Pinochet case caused much controversy and was the main reason for establishment of this court. It revealed to the old system to be amateurishly run. One set of lords ordered him to be arrested; another set of lords overturned this decision; a third set of lords ordered him to be released. This pleased nobody and made the system look ridiculous.

  55. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    There was a time when the national government was (relatively) limited. The franchise was extended to women not by robes, but by a supermajority of the states via amendment of the Constitution in accordance with its terms. Wars (mostly) required legislative declaration. Even as late as 1950, the SCOTUS blocked President Truman’s attempt to preside over the economy.

    But Washington is now a puppet show that manufactures and manages crises to maintain control. The SCOTUS handles hot-button domestic issues (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage) to allow the Congress to act as the world’s greatest investigative body and run for reelection. Both allow the President to run the Empire as he sees fit.

    They’re all on the same side, and voting for Red or Blue in the next Most Important Election Ever does nothing but keep them in power.

    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
  56. Bruno says:
    @Bruno

    Btw they speak, besides clothes and bathroom and clerks, about the new court pros and cons. About special procedure for Scottish court of appeal decisions admission (the appeal was Scottish). And the relationship between the court and the Strasbourg HR courts and Luxembourg UE court.

  57. Brexit and Britain (England especially) has almost no international support, most peoples’ inclination is to support the EU over Britain and Brexit has only made the other EU nations rally around Brussels even more. It is very hard to achieve a big change in international relations, like Brexit would be, without the moral support of many other countries.

    Even our own ethnic and cultural kin in Australia are anti-British and would consider it an insult to be called British, or even worse “English” (or “Pommie bastards” as they say), this is despite the fact that white Australians are almost indistinguishable to white English people to most of the world. The reality is many people don’t like the EU, but they dislike the UK even more. Most people internationally would rather see a strong EU than a strong Britain and thus that is where we are at. Another reason why Brexit has little support internationally is because the Irish and Scottish have been very vocally against it and those two nations have a lot more international support than the English do.

  58. Altai says:

    Ultimately the UK now has a Supreme Court despite it having managed to get this far without one because America has one and now all Western states are effectively vassal states to the US. Rammstein were right.

  59. Altai says:
    @Anonymous

    Considering that all EU citizens living in the UK got the franchise for this, a better question. What proportion would Brexit have won by if we only counted UK citizens?

  60. degsy88 says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    The British system gives the executive a great deal of power and in my view a lot more power than the US executive seems traditionally to have had. So my preference would be that there really should be a general power for Parliament to hold the executive to account, and that this should not be limited to “exceptional circumstances”. But Simon In London disputes that this is really one of the constitutional roles of our parliament and perhaps he is right.

    On the other hand, an unlimited prerogative power to prorogue would also impinge upon parliamentary sovereignty I believe, and parliamentary sovereignty’s status in our system is not I think something that is in dispute. So I also like the decision on those grounds.

    Still, I agree with what you say about the possible consequences of a lack of agreement as to who holds legitimate authority. Perhaps we are overdue for a civil war, though I certainly hope not.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @jim jones
  61. Anonymous[995] • Disclaimer says:

    The ‘Fixed Term Parliaments Act’ – surely very worst piece of British legislation since the 1948 ‘British Nationality Act’ was passed by PM David Cameron effectively ended the Prime Minister’s Royal Pregorative in dissolving a Parliament at will, and thus bringing power back to the people.

    A huge mistake this Act. Now zombie parliaments, deadlocked and stalemated can fester for years ‘in office but out of power’. Also unscrupulous MPs are using political deadlock as a means of party advantage.

    This is Cameron’s legacy.

  62. Anonymous[995] • Disclaimer says:

    Of course, this whole political news and crisis the UK finds itself in is ultimately due, absolutely, to Tony Blair’s madcap open door immigration policy (Economist). All this is merely a symptom of the delayed backlash.

  63. The UK has rather the opposite constitutional system versus the US: Whereas we have a “separation of powers,” the core concept in the UK’s system is “parliamentary sovereignty”—basically, the notion that all power ultimately rests in “the Queen in Parliament” (the monarch, as her will is supposedly manifested in Parliament).

    In line with this principle, there is, of course, no separation between the executive and the legislature (the PM and other members of the government are all members of Parliament, and are dependent on a Parliamentary majority to maintain their power). And historically, there was also no separation between the legislature and the judiciary—ultimate appeals went to the House of Lords. Over the years, appeals began to be handled by a specialized group of “Law Lords,” a sort of civil service corps who were not chosen like other members of the House of Lords (and the House of Lords itself gradually lost most of its power). So there was a sort of informal independence of the judiciary, but in technical terms there was no separation of powers. A true separation of powers did not arise until ten years ago, when the UK Supreme Court was set up.

    In any event, parliamentary sovereignty is still the rule in the UK. The statute that creates the Supreme Court is just that—a statute, which could be repealed by a bare majority in the Parliament. So perhaps Boris Johnson should call for the repeal of the Court.

  64. slumber_j says:
    @R.G. Camara

    Scalia was also a big fan of English common law, so that may have played into it too:

  65. Anonymous[995] • Disclaimer says:
    @England patriot

    Enoch Powell always thought of Russia as England’s natural ally.

  66. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Simon Tugmutton

    Actually, entire British parliamentary representation system is based on the principle of ‘first past the post’ and ‘winner takes all’. In theory, at least, the entire political complexion of the UK government can hinge on just the decision of one single voter – against the millions of votes for opposition parties.

  67. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Basically it’s just highly modified feudalism.

  68. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @jim jones

    Not even a European let alone an Englishwoman.

  69. Afua Hirsch, the object of previous SS posts, has written a children’s book about Baroness Hale. That tells you everything you need to know about what an awful woman she is. The spider brooch is fitting.

  70. Anonymous[995] • Disclaimer says:

    On thing I cannot understand is why several learned professors and scholars of British Constitution were not called to give ‘expert winter’s – and not merely barristers relatively ignorant of this deep and convoluted subject?
    I also question the judges deep understanding of British Constitution.

    • Replies: @anon
  71. Gordo says:
    @Steve Sailer

    In the UK, however, the reality of parliamentary majority supremacy means that the majority can push through fundamental constitutional changes without lengthy debate.

    There are always a few issues where they know the people are against them and popular and elite opinions are crystalised on opposite sides.

    They kinda used to worry about this, Ted took us into the EEC in 1973 but Harold had it confirmed by a referendum in 1975.

    They were never prepared to have a vote on the death penalty, most ordinary people are and have always been in favour by a large margin, the elites regarding it as an issue of conscience for themselves and are NOT ALLOW.

    David Cameron made a mistake holding a EU in/out referendum as he was convinced that the megaphone was loud enough. The peasants revolted and now the divisions are clear.

    Us/Them, Who/Whom, we are rather civilised but the veneer is wearing thin and those who rule over us may find that cancelling Brexit is a Phyrric victory.

  72. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:

    The newfangled UK Supreme Court was discussed in medium detail in that long Claremont Review of Books article by Christopher Caldwell recently — which may itself already be out of date but is the best primer on Brexit shenanigans I’ve read. Caldwell is quite deft at finding admissions against interest, or unintentionally revealing admissions parallel to interest; e.g. he cites this pro-E.U. journalist who basically stipulates the SCOTUK is a complete nullification of the monarchical-parliamentary system since 1688.

  73. Anonymous[255] • Disclaimer says:
    @England patriot

    The reality is many people don’t like the EU, but they dislike the UK even more. Most people internationally would rather see a strong EU than a strong Britain and thus that is where we are at.

    If you really are an “England Patriot” then I suspect that you sorely underestimate England’s popularity around the globe. English is the lingua franca of our day. English language movies dominate the global box office, and a very high percentage of them have English (Scottish/Welsh) actors and/or are set in England. A very high percentage of them also happen to have German villains. And the world adores the British monarchy.

    Far more Third Worlders want to migrate to the UK than to anywhere else in the EU. Tens of thousands of them camp out in Calais and elsewhere by the shores of the English Channel trying to sneak their way in. They are trying to leave France, for God’s sake.

    But, according to you, people around the globe love Bulgaria and Spain and Germany more than England? Who are you kidding? If Great Britain can’t make it on its own, outside of the EU, then it won’t be for want of global popularity. Great Britain is, like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, a predominantly Anglo-Saxon/Celtic country. It has roughly the population of those other three countries combined. Freed from Europe it will do just fine.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
  74. Clyde says:

    What I read was that this UK Supreme Court was established due to EU pressure and to conform to EU guidelines. Of course Great Britain got along just fine without one for centuries.

  75. Thirdtwin says:

    Supreme Court, pffft. This could have been handled quicker and more efficiently by a Federal Judge. You Brits are so hidebound and unimaginative.

  76. Rob McX says:

    I remember reading in a law book written around 1990 that only three European countries – Germany, Italy and Ireland – then had judicial review of legislation. In the case of Germany and Italy, it was introduced after WW2 (probably under pressure from the Allies) to prevent the rise of a dictator or populist leader.

    • Replies: @degsy88
  77. To tell you the truth, I had never heard before that the UK even had a Supreme Court. It appears that the UK Supreme Court dates from 2009. Whether the legislation intended for it to have such powers or whether it just today made up new powers for itself like the US Supreme Court did in Marbury v. Madison is 1803 is beyond my knowledge.

    The US Supreme Court did not make up new powers in Marbury v. Madison. It did no more than affirm that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, as the Constitution says.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    , @Lot
  78. jim jones says:
    @degsy88

    I once asked some of my acquaintances which side they would fight for if it came down to a fight between the Queen and Parliament, they all said the Queen.

    • Replies: @degsy88
  79. The correct response is to slay this babe in its crib. The Prime Minister should advise the Queen to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision as mere verbiage on a non-justiciable political question.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Diversity Heretic
  80. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Almost Missouri

    Yep, nothing says “democracy” like 11 unelected judges overruling a democratically elected Prime Minister.

    Boris Johnson was not democratically elected Prime Minister. He has neither fought nor won an election.

    Theresa May was elected prime minister. With 42% of the vote.

    As far as I know the last time a British prime minister was elected with a majority of the popular vote was Stanley Baldwin in 1931.

  81. @LondonBob

    Boris Johnson needs to tell the court that it has overstepped its authority and its opinion will be disregarded.

    • Replies: @peterike
  82. degsy88 says:
    @Rob McX

    I know that you were not suggesting otherwise, but just to make it clear to other commenters, the case that the UK supreme court just decided was not an application for judicial review of legislation, but an application for judicial review of the use of prerogative powers to prorogue parliament, and of the advice given by the government to the Queen that she should use those powers in that way.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  83. @degsy88

    Apparently, democracy is too important to be left to the voters.

  84. Doesn’t the court’s ruling also denigrate the authority of the queen, at least by implication? Not that I expect that she is inclined to do anything about it.

  85. Jimi says:
    @R.G. Camara

    If I were a British conservative prime minster I would abolish the Supreme Court.

    I am convinced that judicial review now is leftwing activism. It forces radical social and legal change from the top down rather than let it develop organically form bottom up. And the change is always towards left wing politics.

    Without the US Supreme Court, American society would still have changed in their opinions on abortions, gun rights, gay marriage, etc. But it would have been a slow change built on consensus.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  86. This English so-called “Supreme Court” nonsense has been conjured the Hell up out of thin air just like how the Bank of England conjures up currency out of thin air. It’s frigging globaloney crud of the worst sort.

    Where the Hell is the Steve Sailer blog post about these New York Times bastards and their damn distractionary globalizer crud about the damn brooch this baby boomer Limey broad named Hale is wearing? This nutcake baby boomer Limey broad Hale with the brooch thinks she’s the top dog on some non-existent English Supreme Court? MADNESS! Madness in England!

    They did the exact same crud with that other baby boomer globalizer broad Theresa May and her damn leopard print shoes!

    Sonofabitch to Hell if I ain’t noticing the globalizers in the New York Times are trivializing the Hell out of monumental legal and political traditions in England by focusing the cat ladies attention on the damn leopard print shoes of Theresa May or the brooch of some nasty baby boomer tart judge who thinks she can involve herself in the affairs of the English government in such a manner.

    The USA should give the frigging heave-ho to judicial review and impeach the filthy judge devil dogs in their black dresses and the English should immediately kill this evil monstrosity which calls itself the so-called “Supreme Court.”

    I cordially invite the NY Times to go straight to Hell with this BROOCHES business and this baby boomer Limey turd named Hale!

  87. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Whatever you do don’t call them Kritarchs

    Very anti semitic for poc, who themselves have always loved jews, and are offended via proxy.

  88. Hail says: • Website
    @LondonBob

    On the plus side the media and political class are being thoroughly discredited.

    How good a proxy for this discrediting is “polled support for the Brexit Party and Liberal Democrats, as against Conservatives and Labour”?

    The Brexit Party’s polled support has fallen to the 10-15% range since Boris took over in late July, down from 20-25% in May, June, and early-mid July, when it either exceed or statistically equaled Conservative support in almost all polls.

    Meanwhile, for months the Liberal Democrats have been statistically tying Labour in polls pretty regularly, and every so often even exceeding them.

    Many mid-2019 polls were finding Conservative+Labour at collectively <40%. (Which is not unique to the UK, as it happens; the same collapse occurred in France, Germany, Italy, and others, following the Merkel Migrant Disaster of 2015, which hastened a trend with origins back to the 2000s: the slow declines of the center-left, and later also the center-right, traditional parties.)

  89. Neuday says:
    @Steve in Greensboro

    “Real Americans”? Are you sure you want to popularize that term?

  90. I had the dubious pleasure of going with my wife, her sister, and their brother’s wife to see the recently released film, Downton Abbey. My question is how in hell did this country ever survive with their ridiculous class system? I will never understand some American Anglophiles’ fascination with UK royalty. Didn’t we have a revolution so we wouldn’t have to put up with that nonsense?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @J.Ross
  91. BB753 says:

    A Supreme Court invariably leads to one-Party rule and to the virtual abolition of executive powers, itself a vital check against parliament and the judiciary. See the USA as a prime example.

  92. peterike says:
    @ben tillman

    Boris Johnson needs to tell the court that it has overstepped its authority and its opinion will be disregarded.

    Exactly. This deference to courts needs to stop. The first time a judge blocked Trump’s “Muslim ban” Trump should have said “go F yourself, you have zero authority here” and just ordered the people THAT HE HAS AUTHORITY OVER to block entry from the nations on the list.

    We are long, long overdue for that “Constitutional crisis” that everyone soils their undies about. Judicial power needs to be slapped down hard. Yet Trump, good Boomer that he is, never bucks the system. He is the most deferential President in decades, yet half of America (and 95% of the news media) thinks he functions as a dictator.

    He should be exactly who they think he is.

  93. peterike says:
    @LondonBob

    On the plus side the media and political class are being thoroughly discredited.

    This never, ever happens, no matter how bad they muck it up.

  94. teo toon says:

    The UK Supreme Court was created by the Parliament under Blair; therefore, as an entity created by Parliament, it does not have authority over Parliament: its authority is delegated from the legislature, not a constitution.

  95. Dan Hayes says:
    @R.G. Camara

    R.G. Camara:

    I understand that SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch is not a big APA fan. This in turn has raised serious Administrative State concerns that the jig might be up since Gorsuch has both the knowledge and smarts to strangle their beloved tinker toy!

  96. anonn says:
    @R.G. Camara

    There were no quirks to Scalia’s judicial philosophy. Whatever the far right and the Catholic Church wanted, they got. That was the only principle. Attempts to discern a philosophy from this bootlicking apologist for the oligarchy are exercises in sophistry. I’m glad he’s dead, and it’s just too bad there is no hell.

    If the Brits follow our lead and allow unelected judges to usurp political power from the people and their elected representatives, they certainly won’t get Brexit or anything else popular. In this country, national marijuana legalization, background checks for buying machine guns, and restricting billionaires from buying elections are widely popular, yet none can happen. Brexit looks to be an unwise decision, but the people voted for it.

    I’m a leftist and no fan of Boris, but I would have had some respect for him if he had responded by ignoring the judges, or even better, firing all of them.

  97. istevefan says:
    @Simon in London

    Unlawful based on the motivation of the Prime Minister. It’s pretty breathtaking even for these dark times.

    It’s all about ensuring the Blair Revolution can never be rolled back.

    That sounds similar to way the courts judged Trump when he tried to issue an executive order on banning immigrants from certain countries. Though he has the right to do this, I think the judges involved stated that his motivations were racist or something of the sort and they cited his campaign rhetoric, not the actual executive order. So they counteracted him not because he was not allowed to do this, but because they believed his motivation was unworthy.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @degsy88
  98. Dan Hayes says:
    @HonestBl

    HonestBl:

    The welcome demise of the “Weekly Standard” has permitted Caldwell’s escape from that neocon abomination!

  99. @YetAnotherAnon

    Its a special brand of retard to decide that what a country really needs is more judges answering to no one.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
  100. @YetAnotherAnon
    In many ways, though it will be a while before people twig it, this is the end of the Monarchy entirely. No longer does the Queen serve a constitutional role at all, her advisers have not power nor authority.

    So, how does this work out? Being a Yank, I see two possibilities:

    1. HMTQ conspired with PM to break the law and therefore is unfit for office (Parliament sharpens a real or metaphorical ax)

    2. HMTQ is gullible/ easily led/ senile and is therefore unfit for office (Parliament sharpens a real or metaphorical ax)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  101. @Thirdtwin

    Supreme Court, pffft. This could have been handled quicker and more efficiently by a Federal Judge. You Brits are so hidebound and unimaginative.

    Was it not Richard III who said “my Kingdom for a Hawaiian Judge?”

  102. @anonn

    There were no quirks to Scalia’s judicial philosophy. Whatever the far right and the Catholic Church wanted, they got. That was the only principle. Attempts to discern a philosophy from this bootlicking apologist for the oligarchy are exercises in sophistry. I’m glad he’s dead, and it’s just too bad there is no hell.

    You know nothing of Scalia, his written opinions (that is to say those which didn’t make headlines), nor of his judicial philosophy. No one – even a critic – who did would write what you wrote.

    • Replies: @anonn
  103. @peterike

    Exactly. This deference to courts needs to stop. The first time a judge blocked Trump’s “Muslim ban” Trump should have said “go F yourself, you have zero authority here” and just ordered the people THAT HE HAS AUTHORITY OVER to block entry from the nations on the list.

    We are long, long overdue for that “Constitutional crisis” that everyone soils their undies about. Judicial power needs to be slapped down hard. Yet Trump, good Boomer that he is, never bucks the system. He is the most deferential President in decades, yet half of America (and 95% of the news media) thinks he functions as a dictator.

    He should be exactly who they think he is.

    I don’t fundamentally disagree that deference to Courts which overstep their authority is bad and should be jettisoned, but shouldn’t we wait to see how the next few years shake out before instituting such a crisis? I mean, generational control of SCOTUS is in sight, as is control of the several Circuit Courts. Sounds like you could be counseling a unilateral act of disarming.

    Sure, I have no doubt that if the Federal Courts are squarely under the control of the right that leftists will find excuses for nullification, but It’d be better that they do it (and we can then disregard all past precedents we don’t like, which favor them much more than they favor us).

  104. Anonymous[967] • Disclaimer says:
    @Enemy of Earth

    From what I see of America – with all the disparaging comments about ‘trailer trash’, ‘fly over country’ and the institutionalized worship of wealth – and morons such as the Kardashians, Wall St Hedge Fund managers, the Koch Bros, ‘Libertarians’ etc, vast inequality of wealth and income etc etc etc, Ivy League, ‘Wasp Preppies’, the America class system – though you never describe it thus – is infinitely more vicious than anything England ever had.

  105. Anonymous[967] • Disclaimer says:
    @deplorable_me

    ‘Royal Assent’, that is the the de jure symbolic final stage of a new Act of Parliament before it is enacted, has not been refused by a reigning monarch since the time of Queen Anne in the early 18th century.
    Therefore, the convention is that the Monarch simply ‘rubber stamps’ any Act – or dissolution or prorogation of Parliament that the Prime Minister or Privy Council bring to him/her.
    In other words, it is effectively a constitutional fiction, and the de facto situation is, in effect, that the Prime Minister him/herself acts as proxy for the Monarch in this case. This convention has *never* been challenged – until now – at the very least since the time of Sir Robert Walpole, the very first Prime Minister way way back in the 1700s.

    The ‘Supreme Court’ has taken the meaning of ‘Judge made law’ to a whole new higher level.
    Basically it has usurped State power – rather than interpretation of statute – to itself. In effect the British Crown has been subordinated.

  106. Anon[429] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: This Trump impeachment nonsense. Pelosi flip-flopped because the Democrats in the House of Representatives no longer come from districts scattered all over the US, but have become a superconcentration of representatives from mainly 2 very liberals states, California and New York, with some additions from New England and the Northwest coast. This last midterm was a tipping point.

    Pelosi no longer has a moderate caucus she can work with. The radicals outnumber the moderates, and they have told her she isn’t going to be speaker unless she caves into their agenda. That’s why she gave important committee assignments to the radicals. She has counted heads, and she can’t get any support for a moderate position. Even if the Democrats disgrace themselves, any swing seats are going to shift to Republicans instead to moderate Democrats, and Pelosi is in a lose-lose situation.

    If she tries to stop the vote, she’s be voted out as as speaker by the radicals on her own side, and the traditional Democratic donors will be ticked off and likely won’t give much for 2020, especially with a lousy candidate at the top. If she goes ahead with impeachment, she’ll enrage moderate voters in swing districts that might have voted Democratic, but which will now go to the Republicans. Either way, she’s going to lose her speakership by 2020.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  107. J.Ross says:
    @Enemy of Earth

    The truth is their system was so good that it far outlasted its putative lifespan. Watch our current mud system-of-no-system vanish like Spanish Anarchism or the Italian experiments which immediately preceded Mussolini.

  108. J.Ross says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Johnson has nothing to lose — they’re coming straight at him, not next but now — and he has the personality to try it. If he doesn’t even try then that’s his true measure as a leader.

  109. @anonn

    lol. There there, baby killer, I’m impressed with your lying abilities here, as stupid as they make you sound. Originalism isn’t a philosophy, eh? Sad you’re so ignorant, but hey, that’s par for the course for a leftist.

    Now run along, son, you’re not wanted here.

    • Replies: @anonn
  110. @ben tillman

    Um, yeah it did. In Marbury, the Supreme Court (or should I say the power-hungry John Marshall) made up out of whole cloth the idea that the Supreme Court was the sole and final arbiter of whether something was constitutional or not. That is nowhere written or implied in the Constitution, and deciding “constitutionality” was to be shared among the three branches.

    But the political branches (i.e. Congress and the President) found that Marbury was useful because they could punt issues to the Supreme Court; they could do something wildly popular but dangerous, and then when the Supreme Court shot it down, could shrug and say, “Hey, its not my fault, the Supreme Court decided it, and they’re the sole arbiter!” (*wink wink* “Thanks guys!”)

    Marbury was an unauthorized, unconstitutional power grab of the highest degree by the court.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  111. @dfordoom

    “Boris Johnson was not democratically elected Prime Minister. He has neither fought nor won an election.”

    BoJo’s party won the election and the party elected him to be PM. Yes, the party won with 42% of the vote, but as you point out, outright majority victories are rare in the UK system.

  112. @The Anti-Gnostic

    Good comment! Trump should have started ignoring the federal judiciary on day one of his administration and Johnson should ignore it now.

    Excessive deference to judges, who are nothing more than lawyers whose political connections put them in black robes, is death to rule by elected officials,

  113. If you want to hear a brief exert of probably the best orator in the House of Commons today, take a look at

    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
  114. @degsy88

    [T]he case that the UK supreme court just decided was . . . an application for judicial review of the use of prerogative powers to prorogue parliament, and of the advice given by the government to the Queen that she should use those powers in that way.

    The decision is therefore even worse than finding specific legislation is unconstitutional-at least that’s a legal question. The case here was explicitly a review of a political decision by tradition entrusted to Her Majesty, acting upon advice on Her Majesty’s prime minister. In my humble opinion, whatever authority the monarch had has just been arrogated to the UK Supreme Court. Queen Elizabeth I would have known what to do with the members of this “Supreme” Court.

    • Replies: @degsy88
    , @Hibernian
  115. @Anonymous

    Why doesn’t Boris Johnson tell Jean-Claude Juncker to get stuffed?

    To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the EU have? Macron might command loyalty of a couple, but Merkel, effectively none?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  116. To tell you the truth, I had never heard before that the UK even had a Supreme Court. It appears that the UK Supreme Court dates from 2009.

    Steve, their elites simply got jealous of our elites being able to overrule whatever nonsense the peasantry was asking for via those tedious “election” thingys.

  117. Corvinus says:

    “Whether the legislation intended for it to have such powers or whether it just today made up new powers for itself like the US Supreme Court did in Marbury v. Madison is 1803 is beyond my knowledge.”

    More hysterical, historical lunacy from the Grand Noticer of the Coalition of the Fringes Right. Indeed, basic American history is beyond your knowledge.

    The Supreme Court did “not make up new powers”, Mr. Sailer. The Constitution established the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789, creating a Supreme Court with six justices and establishing the lower federal court system.

    As the final arbiter of the law, as provided by the decision in Marbury, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is “distinctly American in concept and function,” former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed.

    In other words, the Supreme Court had power as established by Congress, and the Supreme Court simply tested out that power by ruling in a federal case.

  118. Corvinus says:
    @Jimi

    “I am convinced that judicial review now is leftwing activism. It forces radical social and legal change from the top down rather than let it develop organically form bottom up. And the change is always towards left wing politics.”

    Actually, judicial review may result in judicial activism or judicial restraint. Judicial activism is NOT linked exclusively to liberals, while judicial restraint is NOT linked exclusively to conservatives. That is, conservative judges may be activist in preserving an established doctrine, and liberal judges may be restrained from overturning an established doctrine. Judicial activism and judicial restraint lies in the extent to which a judge is willing to depart from the wording of the law and contest the will of the other branches of government.

    “Without the US Supreme Court, American society would still have changed in their opinions on abortions, gun rights, gay marriage, etc. But it would have been a slow change built on consensus.”

    Maybe. Then again, probably not.

  119. @istevefan

    That sounds similar to way the courts judged Trump when he tried to issue an executive order on banning immigrants from certain countries. Though he has the right to do this, I think the judges involved stated that his motivations were racist or something of the sort and they cited his campaign rhetoric, not the actual executive order. So they counteracted him not because he was not allowed to do this, but because they believed his motivation was unworthy.

    Exactly. Someone was saying the US Supreme Philosopher Kings had mercifully spared us their “wisdom” on questions of foreign policy … not anymore! Not when it’s Trump. Not when it’s someone not on board with “nation of immigrants”ism. Not when it’s someone standing in the way of “diversity”. Any of those and black letter law is out the window!

  120. Alden says:
    @LondonBob

    So you prefer a one person dictatorship instead of a parliament that controls how much tax should be paid by the taxpayers and how the administration sector of government should use the tax payers money?

    That was the basic function of the English parliament from the earliest days. Control the sovereign by controlling the money.

    This article is about the judiciary, not parliament

  121. @Steve Sailer

    Be still my heart. The great man replied! (Seriously.)

    But it sounds like Pirate Captain Boris isn’t waiting for Parliament to abolish anything. He simply says (quoting the indispensable Delingpole) … “No disrespect to the judiciary”, he began – using the time-honoured formula he will have learned from his teenage children, meaning “Maximum disrespect, actually, you scum-sucking losers” – “That court decision was wrong.”

    The court decision was wrong. The court can get bent. Or paraphrasing Stalin: “The SCUK? How many divisions do they have?”

    If Trump actually had a political party supporting him that had a single pair of testicles among the whole group, he could do the same thing. But the Republicans lack those critical items.

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/25/boris-to-remoaner-judges-that-decision-was-wrong/

  122. With SCOTUS bending conservative under Trump, what we really need is SCROTUS: Sho-nuff Court Rulin’ Over The U.s. Scotus.

    If you don’t support Obama for Chief Justice of SCROTUS I will tan your flippin hide.

  123. Vinteuil says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    The good news is that real Americans are finally standing up and demanding Trump needs to be impeached for violating the Constitution repeatedly. Anti-American elites like Peter Thiel, the Kochs, Murdoch and Adelson need to be driven out, I agree. Too much of our politics is driven by billionaires playing games.

    Hey, P.A. – are you working out of Moscow, or Piter?

    I’ll be visiting both, next Spring/Summer, and I’ll be happy to offer you advice on how to up your game.

  124. notsaying says:

    Speaking of the UK — I just saw this over at the Telegraph. [It’s one of their Premium articles that you have to be a subscriber to see fully so I won’t bother with a link.] The Labour Party leader is declaring the UK has an open border and that everybody’s welcome! That’s simply mindboggling to me, I cannot believe it:

    Jeremy Corbyn will scrap controls on immigration and hand foreign nationals the right to vote in future elections and referendums if Labour wins power.

    The Labour leader will head into the next election promising to extend freedom of movement to migrants around the world, along with abolishing detention centres, under plans approved on Wednesday.

    Despite Mr Corbyn’s team being privately opposed to the plan, delegates at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton unanimously backed a motion which commits the party to “free movement, equality and rights for migrants”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  125. What are the odds Boris Johnson says “Now enforce it” and goes on to do what he wants?

    AFAIK the courts don’t even have an enforcement mechanism like the Marshals over there.

  126. anonn says:
    @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    No one – even a critic – who did would write what you wrote.

    You know nothing about reading then, or criticism. I read many thousands of words from his opinions while in law school, and the only through line is a toadying subservience to capital. The late Justice Scalia has been rightly pilloried for decades. He was an occasionally amusing read, for sure, but he was also a hack whose pretend philosophy is nothing but a litany of craven bootlicking.

  127. anonn says:
    @R.G. Camara

    Originalism is a pretend philosophy for rubes.

    Now that having been said, I actually do agree with your point below about Marbury. The center-left judicial activism of the Warren court poisoned our politics as badly as the far-right judicial activism of the current court. None of us ever voted for this.

    • Replies: @Jack Henson
    , @R.G. Camara
  128. Lot says:
    @ben tillman

    Agree.

    From Dr. Bonham’s Case, a decision by Coke in 1610 refusing to enforce an act of Parliament that allowed the College of Physicians to summarily jail unlicensed physicians:

    “And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void”

    That was the background on the power of a judge in which our Constitution was written.

  129. @anonn

    “Far right activism”.

    Sir this is an Arby’s you can’t smoke crack here.

  130. Anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonn

    “And it’s just too bad there’s no hell”

    Okay, so you agree with the people you despise then.

  131. Anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonn

    “And it’s just too bad there’s no hell”

    Okay, so you agree with the people you despise then.

  132. dfordoom says: • Website

    BoJo’s party won the election and the party elected him to be PM. Yes, the party won with 42% of the vote, but as you point out, outright majority victories are rare in the UK system.

    My point was that Boris’s claims to legitimacy are very tenuous. The majority of the voters voted against his party in the last election. The people were not given the chance to vote on whether they wanted Boris as their new prime minister. He does not command a majority in the House of Commons.

    All of which puts him in a weak position. The fact that his party won the last election (under a different leader) under Britain’s ludicrously undemocratic electoral system can hardly be said to give him any genuine legitimacy.

    As for Brexit, it’s irrelevant. It’s a quarrel between two different globalist factions. One faction believes that it can loot the country more easily with the aid of the euro-bureacracy and the other faction believes it can loot the country more easily under a free trade regime. Both sides on the Brexit debate are equally poisonous. It’s a choice between being ruled from Brussels or from Washington. Boris Johnson is American-born (and in outlook he’s almost entirely American) so it’s no surprise which side he chose.

    Whichever side wins the Brexit dispute the British people will lose.

    • Replies: @Gordo
    , @anon
  133. @Anon

    representatives from mainly 2 very liberals states,

    I think you mean three very leftist cities in those two states. Two of which are financial capitals.

  134. Anonymous[237] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    A British PM is simply an MP (member of parliament) who has been elected prime minister by the a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

    Neither Baldwin nor any other PM ever personally received a popular vote to serve as PM in the way that U.S. presidents do.

    MP’s forming Baldwin’s coalition (mostly Conservatives) collectively did receive a significant share of the popular vote. Technically, this is irrelevant because each MP is elected in on a first-past-the-post system in a geographic district (“constituency”).

  135. MattinLA says:
    @Twinkie

    Amen, brother. As another 50ish oldster, I feel the same way.

  136. @England patriot

    Most conservative Americans support Brexit because we support a sovereign people ruling their own land, as is proper.

    By the way, at least in America, love for the ‘Irish’ or ‘Scottish’ is a mile wide and an inch deep. Scottish independence is viewed here as being as farcical as that of Quebec, and does no credit to them. There are lots of cool Irish, Scottish, French Canadians, but lots of cool English too. So it’s pretty much a draw, or really, not a draw, because there are so many more English.

    I haven’t been to England in a while so don’t know the conditions. But I honestly don’t get your viewpoint. You’re living in one of the world’s most advanced countries that just happens to be an island. I love my land but wish there was a 25 mile wide ‘American Channel’ across my southern border. Things would certainly be different in my native land.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  137. Anonymous[158] • Disclaimer says:
    @notsaying

    He’s just lost the next General Election.
    Count on it.

    Likely now that Labour will be out of power for a very very long time.

    When will these people ever learn?

  138. degsy88 says:
    @jim jones

    That’s an interesting point and I think acquaintances of mine would mostly say the same, though for my own part I genuinely don’t know which side I would have supported in the actual civil war of our history, if that is even a meaningful question.

    I am not sure if people would fight for Charles or William though, maybe Harry before he married that Markle woman..

    I do think that if the Queen was ever going to make a useful intervention in the conduct of the British state, she would have done so by now; as I recall that was one of the themes of Johnson’s notorious – and absolutely hilarious – “grinning picaninnies with watermelon smiles” article in the Spectator all those years ago.

  139. degsy88 says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    It is not that I think this view is illegitimate exactly, but that the question whether there are some limits on the monarch’s prerogative powers was settled a very long time ago in the civil war, the Glorious Revolution and in a number of subsequent cases (see the judgment available at the Supreme Court website for references). Maybe the monarch should have unlimited prerogative powers, but it seems to be settled law in both “England and Wales” and Scotland that they do not.

  140. degsy88 says:
    @istevefan

    The court specifically declined to consider or comment on the prime minister’s motives. Honestly, it is worth reading the (quite short and clear) judgment itself.

  141. Gordo says:
    @dfordoom

    My point was that Boris’s claims to legitimacy are very tenuous. The majority of the voters voted against his party in the last election.

    It’s a parliamentary system with first-past-the-post voting for MPs, you need a plurality of MPs, not of national votes.

    To reverse what you are saying would be for a British person to doubt Trump’s legitimacy in office if he didn’t have a majority in the Senate.

    If the US Constitution is the only legitimate democracy then only the USA and Liberia are democracies.

    Also doubting the legitimacy of any government you happen to disagree with is breaking that civic compact that hold off the horror of civil war. It’s happening all too often at the moment.

  142. anon[300] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s all theatre.
    Johnson is running dead, and has no intention of delivering Brexit.

  143. anon[300] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    The public have never voted for a Prime Minister in the Parliamentary system.
    That’s the job of the elected Members of the governing Party, and that Party elected Johnson

  144. Hibernian says:
    @anonn

    “I’m a leftist”

    Your entire post boils down to those three words.

  145. Hibernian says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    “Queen Elizabeth I would have known what to do with the members of this ‘Supreme’ Court.”

    Off with their heads!

  146. Hibernian says:
    @Inquiring Mind

    There’s a move to create an EU Army; don’t know how far it’s gotten.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  147. @R.G. Camara

    Um, yeah it did. In Marbury, the Supreme Court (or should I say the power-hungry John Marshall) made up out of whole cloth the idea that the Supreme Court was the sole and final arbiter of whether something was constitutional or not.

    No, it didn’t. It adjudicated a legal complaint. Nothing more.

    And it had to rule as it did. The alternative was to overrule the Constitution.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
  148. @ben tillman

    No, it didn’t. It adjudicated a legal complaint. Nothing more.

    ROFL LMAO. And now we all know ben tillman is a gas-lighting liar of the highest degree.

    The case created out of nothing the Supreme Court’s primary role in constitutional interpretation.

    Here’s are links from Britannica and Infogalactic, incase lying ben tilman tries to deny it all again:

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Marbury_v._Madison

    Now go back to the Daily Kos, kid. Your lies don’t work around here.

  149. @anonn

    lol. Gosh you’re a hilariously bad-lying little commie.

    Don’t you have to go cash your soros paycheck today?

  150. Anonymous[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @England patriot

    Huge numbers of Irish in Australia. They may even be a majority of the ‘Anglo’ population.

  151. dfordoom says: • Website

    A British PM is simply an MP (member of parliament) who has been elected prime minister by the a majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

    Neither Baldwin nor any other PM ever personally received a popular vote to serve as PM in the way that U.S. presidents do.

    That’s true in theory. In practice voters know that backbenchers are irrelevant and that they are voting for a prime minister. They know that it doesn’t matter a damn if Fred Bloggs is elected MP for Upper Slingsbottom. What matters is whether they want Theresa May (in the case of the 2017 election) or Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister.

    Also PMs are not elected prime minister by a majority of MPs. Party leaders elected by a majority of their own party, not necessarily MPs. In theory the PM has to command a majority on the floor of the House (which is the basis on which the monarch appoints prime ministers) but that’s a matter of party discipline not democracy. In any case Boris Johnson can’t even command a majority in the House of Commons. To see Boris Johnson as a democratically elected or legitimate prime minister is simply laughable.

  152. dfordoom says: • Website
    @XYZ (no Mr.)

    Most conservative Americans support Brexit because we support a sovereign people ruling their own land, as is proper.

    Britain is ruled by a ruthless and hostile elite. It certainly isn’t a sovereign people ruling their own land. And Brexit ain’t gonna change that.

  153. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Hibernian

    There’s a move to create an EU Army; don’t know how far it’s gotten.

    In theory it would be a good idea if it replaced NATO. NATO needs to die.

  154. Romanian says: • Website
    @HonestBl

    Can anyone explain to me why I can’t access any Claremont.org article?

    It keeps saying

    Error code 16
    This request was blocked by the security rules

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS