You do not know his motivation. You can only guess, as did the judges, who are ardent Remainers.
Yes, Iâm aware of that, which is why I stated it as I did.
1 Like
Nor did I claim to know. It was your Supreme Court that unanimously ruled it was unlawful. Again, will their decision be followed with an explanatory brief like ours does here???
That is the way our Constitution has worked for centuries. Why now question whether or not a monarch has been deceived?
I wasnât around for centuries to question such thingsâŚ
It is all very strange. If a law has been broken, they will state which law and give a directive. They just said it was âunlawfulâ and left it at that.
We need a serious overhaul of our judicial system. It is not fit for purpose. And to think that many countriesâ laws are based on English law.
Jen, would you kindly answer my question about whether or not your Supreme Court issues an explanatory brief on their ruling? Or if you donât know, fine, just say so and Iâll stop asking.
Long enough to see the UK have a number of PMs who all report to the Queen.
I believe they should do. I stated above.
So are you telling me that no one has ever questioned whether or not a PM was deceptive with a monarch? If so, perhaps youâre just witnessing a lot of âfirst timesâ over there like we are over here.
So you believe that they should, but thereâs no established precedent for such???
Exactly so. No one ever questioned the prorogueing of Parliament before either. Like I said before, it is convention every September for the party conferences. The Lib Dems have had theirs. Labour have had theirs. Now it looks like the Tories may be denied theirs. John Major prorogued Parliament too in the 90âs and hypocritically he was backing the case against Boris.
Apparently, no one ever had cause to question motive before. This is why I keep asking you about YOUR Supreme Court rules. In America, the SCOTUS doesnât just take up issues, complaints are filed and the court is asked to hear and the court decides whether or not to hear the case.
Can you tell me if yours is similar???
You cannot prosecute someone for not doing something or not doing their job. You sack them. So there is another conflict. This is all Bercowâs fault. Previously only the Government could make laws. Bercow single handedly changed that.
SCOTUS doesnât get into their opinions on motives either. Even the House and Senate rules have taboos against questioning another memberâs motives. They try to confine themselves to debating the issues and the legality of same.
Your opinion of someone motives does not affect the law. Regardless of Johnsonâs motives, he broke no law.
Perhaps his motive here was that it is common practice to prorogue the parliament in September. Who knows? Only the Shadow knows!
1 Like
True I suppose. Ruling the world through imperialism and exploitation of man and material has its cost.
Absolutely. So if you go into a shop and buy a knife, I get you arrested for your motive of wanting to stab someone! I say that it is. You say you bought the knife to chop food. I say liar! You have broken no law, but 11 judges unanimously deem you buying that knife unlawful because your motive is to stab someone!
The traitors are accusing Boris of ârunning the clock downâ by absenting them from the House so that they canât frustrate our referendum choice. In other words, a prorogation, which is normal just ahead of a Queeniepooâs Speech, is only about 4 days, whereas Borisâs is for 14 days (I think it was)
Edited - I changed âcanâ to âcanâtâ. 
Must do better!
It was a bad law, and bad laws need to be broken. This was a contrived law dreamed up by the remainers for no other reason than to put Boris on the back foot and frustrate his intentions for the 31st October exit. Fuck 'em all is what I say!
Our judicial system has really become a big joke. First Tommy Robinson, now Boris and probably plenty more in between that we donât know about. They should just make one law - no anti Establishment - and be done with it. Aka tyranny.