|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 24, 2023 18:09:44 GMT
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). No. Judges can INTERPRET law. At any level from magistrate to Supreme Court. Parliament makes law. That principle is the beating heart of democracy. If judges make law you are on the road to fascism. They may however SUGGEST laws or amendments. But they ALL must be voted on in Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Dec 24, 2023 18:24:45 GMT
If as you seem to be saying, there is no difference between Blairs supreme court and the House of Lords, what is the point of the supreme court? Not much. It seems more egalitarian, I suppose. It's a bit outmoded to have laws made directly by Lords. The House of Lords Appellate committee did not comprise the entire House of Lords - only the 13 (?) law Lords and it delivered judgments (less than 100 each year)from the floor of the Lords The same Law Lords who now have a £58m exclusive building to deliver their less than 100 judgments from A total waste of £58m |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 24, 2023 18:45:43 GMT
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). No. Judges can INTERPRET law. At any level from magistrate to Supreme Court. Parliament makes law. That principle is the beating heart of democracy. If judges make law you are on the road to fascism. They may however SUGGEST laws or amendments. But they ALL must be voted on in Parliament. No. The common law judges make the common law. 'In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.' The common law judiciary does not merely 'interpret' statutes or a code made by Parliament: 'Instead of interpreting a code to develop the law, common law judges develop the law which their predecessors have made. While statute law now impinges on many areas of private law, large tracts of our private law remain predominantly the product of judicial decisions.' |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 24, 2023 18:46:54 GMT
Not much. It seems more egalitarian, I suppose. It's a bit outmoded to have laws made directly by Lords. The House of Lords Appellate committee did not comprise the entire House of Lords - only the 13 (?) law Lords and it delivered judgments (less than 100 each year)from the floor of the Lords The same Law Lords who now have a £58m exclusive building to deliver their less than 100 judgments from A total waste of £58m Yep. Same court. Different place, different name. |
|
