|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 15:37:36 GMT
We are. There is no difference between 'Blair's' Supreme Court and the HoL Court other than the name and location. Both have the same judges, the same procedural rules, the same jurisdiction, and the same laws. 'Blair's' Supreme Court was just a renaming of the old court. Common law judges make laws. It's not a good look to have feudal lords making laws in this day and age. So, the Supreme Court has now taken over that task. But it's the same court; just a different name. That's not quite right, but unfortunately I must dash. Be sure to enlighten us when you return. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 23, 2023 17:22:11 GMT
That's not quite right, but unfortunately I must dash. Be sure to enlighten us when you return. Hope springs eternal lol. Enlightening you lefties is a tough gig.  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 17:53:42 GMT
Be sure to enlighten us when you return. Hope springs eternal lol. Enlightening you lefties is a tough gig. Give it a shot. Tell us how renaming the HoL to the SC has changed: 1) the court's procedures; 2) the court's staff and employees; 3) The court's jurisdiction; 4) The law's applied by the court. As far as I'm aware, the last major change in the judicial structure occurred in the 1880s (or thereabouts) when the courts of equity and common law were fused. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 23, 2023 18:16:56 GMT
Hope springs eternal lol. Enlightening you lefties is a tough gig. Give it a shot. Tell us how renaming the HoL to the SC has changed: 1) the court's procedures; 2) the court's staff and employees; 3) The court's jurisdiction; 4) The law's applied by the court. As far as I'm aware, the last major change in the judicial structure occurred in the 1880s (or thereabouts) when the courts of equity and common law were fused. As I've asked on this and similar threads, if there's no difference between the Lords and the supreme court, what's the point of the supreme court? Was it just a case of Blair changing things so he could say, 'I did that'? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 18:19:08 GMT
Give it a shot. Tell us how renaming the HoL to the SC has changed: 1) the court's procedures; 2) the court's staff and employees; 3) The court's jurisdiction; 4) The law's applied by the court. As far as I'm aware, the last major change in the judicial structure occurred in the 1880s (or thereabouts) when the courts of equity and common law were fused. As I've asked on this and similar threads, if there's no difference between the Lords and the supreme court, what's the point of the supreme court? Was it just a case of Blair changing things so he could say, 'I did that'? I've already answered. The common law judges make law. Having the laws made by the HoL has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age. It's a cosmetic change only, as the same people are making the common law as have always made the common law. I've answered you question. Your turn. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 23, 2023 18:41:28 GMT
As I've asked on this and similar threads, if there's no difference between the Lords and the supreme court, what's the point of the supreme court? Was it just a case of Blair changing things so he could say, 'I did that'? I've already answered. The common law judges make law. Having the laws made by the HoL has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age. It's a cosmetic change only, as the same people are making the common law as have always made the common law. I've answered you question. Your turn. "The House of Lords has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age"! Seriously? Perhaps we should get rid of Magna Carta, Parliament, The Act of Union and the monarchy. You are comming across as a left wing philistine who wants to cancel our history. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 18:43:25 GMT
I've already answered. The common law judges make law. Having the laws made by the HoL has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age. It's a cosmetic change only, as the same people are making the common law as have always made the common law. I've answered you question. Your turn. "The House of Lords has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age"! Seriously? Perhaps we should get rid of Magna Carta, Parliament, The Act of Union and the monarchy. You are comming across as a left wing philistine who wants to cancel our history. I'm pretty sure that was the reason. Society has already pretty much 'cancelled feudalism'. Who gives a shit if it's part of the country's history? So are the plague and ducking stools. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 18:43:49 GMT
I've already answered. The common law judges make law. Having the laws made by the HoL has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age. It's a cosmetic change only, as the same people are making the common law as have always made the common law. I've answered you question. Your turn. "The House of Lords has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age"! Seriously? Perhaps we should get rid of Magna Carta, Parliament, The Act of Union and the monarchy. You are comming across as a left wing philistine who wants to cancel our history. So, go ahead and tell us how the HoL and SC differ. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 23, 2023 18:44:54 GMT
"The House of Lords has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age"! Seriously? Perhaps we should get rid of Magna Carta, Parliament, The Act of Union and the monarchy. You are comming across as a left wing philistine who wants to cancel our history. So, go ahead and tell us how the HoL and SC differ. LOL, see above. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 23, 2023 18:46:00 GMT
So, go ahead and tell us how the HoL and SC differ. LOL, see above. Where exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 24, 2023 8:01:24 GMT
The point is that the EU is not subject to the judgements of the ECHR - but we are. You don't seem to understand that "laws" are subject to interpretation by courts - and these interpretations can be very different from what the law maker intended. In the case of the ECHR it's not the basic charter that is in question - no doubt it's mostly very worthy stuff. The problem is that the ECHR can put perverse interpretations that, for example, make it impossible for us to expel even serial criminals. And these judgements become part of case law which gradually make the judgements of the ECHR nonsensical. The EU is not bound by the ECHR, but we are. We get the same problems with our "Supreme Court" (imposed on us by Mr Blair) which has, on several occasions recently, made judgements that - according to Lord Sumption - meant that the court had moved from interpreting law to making law, usurping the role of the Executive in other words. This is what the ECHR has done. There's something that isn't very clear here. Perhaps, you could explain. The EU requires that all its members subject themselves to the authority of the ECHR. If the ECHR finds that a law in a member state is contrary to the requirements of the Convention, the member state is required to repeal or amend that law. But the EU introduces laws into member states in the form of directives and regulations. This means that a citizen of a member state can challenge those laws for failure to comply with the ECHR. So, aren't EU regulations and directives already subject to the ECHR if a member state is required to disapply them if they are found by the ECHR to be inconsistent with the Convention on Human Rights? The ECHR stands below the ECJ. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 24, 2023 10:18:53 GMT
As I've asked on this and similar threads, if there's no difference between the Lords and the supreme court, what's the point of the supreme court? Was it just a case of Blair changing things so he could say, 'I did that'? I've already answered. The common law judges make law. Having the laws made by the HoL has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age. It's a cosmetic change only, as the same people are making the common law as have always made the common law. I've answered you question. Your turn. Parliament makes laws. The HoL can point out discrepancies in proposed legislation but can be ignored by the House of Commins. The Supreme Court has the final say in any possible conflict and can be used by individual citizens too. You cannot take your individual complaint to the HoL. Our first step is our MP or soliciror/barrister, which goes up rhe chain of courts by granting of appeals, to the final arbitrator, the Supreme Court. The HoL is there purely to inspect proposed legislation and is not a court. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 24, 2023 10:29:09 GMT
There's something that isn't very clear here. Perhaps, you could explain. The EU requires that all its members subject themselves to the authority of the ECHR. If the ECHR finds that a law in a member state is contrary to the requirements of the Convention, the member state is required to repeal or amend that law. But the EU introduces laws into member states in the form of directives and regulations. This means that a citizen of a member state can challenge those laws for failure to comply with the ECHR. So, aren't EU regulations and directives already subject to the ECHR if a member state is required to disapply them if they are found by the ECHR to be inconsistent with the Convention on Human Rights? The ECHR stands below the ECJ. Since they deal with completely different things, this comment is spurious. The ECJ deals ONLY with laws made by the EU. Cases involving EU law are not the remit of the ECHR which has a membership far wider than the EU. The EU does not make laws concerning human rights It has ADOPTED humman rights legislation made by the ECHR which is the only court which can change them or create them. The ECJ has no such powers. Stop making up facts in order to justify your mistake of a lifetime. And once again continue a 7 year old discussion. As I said, a pointless thread designed by a troll. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 24, 2023 12:21:11 GMT
I've already answered. The common law judges make law. Having the laws made by the HoL has a feudal feel that is out of place in this day and age. It's a cosmetic change only, as the same people are making the common law as have always made the common law. I've answered you question. Your turn. Parliament makes laws. The HoL can point out discrepancies in proposed legislation but can be ignored by the House of Commins. The Supreme Court has the final say in any possible conflict and can be used by individual citizens too. You cannot take your individual complaint to the HoL. Our first step is our MP or soliciror/barrister, which goes up rhe chain of courts by granting of appeals, to the final arbitrator, the Supreme Court. The HoL is there purely to inspect proposed legislation and is not a court. There are two sources of law in the UK. The common law judges make laws in the common law courts (case law). MPs make laws in Parliament (legislation). |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 24, 2023 12:24:24 GMT
There's something that isn't very clear here. Perhaps, you could explain. The EU requires that all its members subject themselves to the authority of the ECHR. If the ECHR finds that a law in a member state is contrary to the requirements of the Convention, the member state is required to repeal or amend that law. But the EU introduces laws into member states in the form of directives and regulations. This means that a citizen of a member state can challenge those laws for failure to comply with the ECHR. So, aren't EU regulations and directives already subject to the ECHR if a member state is required to disapply them if they are found by the ECHR to be inconsistent with the Convention on Human Rights? The ECHR stands below the ECJ. No, each is sovereign in its own system. Show us a single instance of a member of the public of a member state taking its government to the ECHR on the basis of a claim that an EU regulation or directive has breached his/her human rights. |
|
