Post by ProVeritas on Mar 21, 2024 10:06:17 GMT
You think "The Right" doesn't use the law to its own benefit?
I am more Right than the Tories on some issues within Law & Order.
I am more Left than Starmer's New-Nu-Lab on some issues of Economics.
In my opinion only a moron picks one spot on the Left / Right spectrum and pins all their political aspirations on it.
And really, the quaint adherence to the "Left vs Right" spectrum conflict is laughable, it really only works in a two-party state, Politics is way more nuanced than that these days, the real issue is that so many people have not been smart enough to figure that out, and they therefore fell "politics is letting them down" when is reality they are letting down the political system in this country. Genuine democracy required informed voters, those who still think is exclusively about Left vs Right are NOT informed voters.
Lawfare is made up word to make it sound like some section of society is being unfairly singled out in some way.
What you call "lawfare" in and childish attempt to make it sound nefarious and scary is what rationale people call "The Rule Of Law".
Every civilised nation on this planet adheres to its own "Rule Of Law" - because doing so is the ONLY way to protect all individuals from the tyranny of the masses, the tyranny of the state, and the tyranny of corporate greed.
The section of society that is being singled out, not unfairly mind you, by what you call "lawfare" does indeed have a name: they are called criminals, they broke the law.
Are you suggesting that the law should not pursue criminals for some reason?
Is that reason that "you happen to agree with them politically".
I'll say again, it does not matter what Trump does, the Law can not go after him if he has NOT broken the law.
He broke the law - it is not only acceptable for the Law to go after him in those cases it is 100% wholly necessary.
I follow UK Politics pretty closely.
Boris illegally prorogued Parliament - he should have been investigated by the law.
Boris did lie to parliament about the parties - even my mother who is a huge Boris fan and thought he could do no wrong came to realise that.
Lord Sumption is a prime example of a Trumpian response to something they don't like - claim it was flawed without showing how in law it was flawed.
Were any of the charges laid against Boris Johnson legally flawed in anyway he would have appealed them, and they would have been overturned - he didn't, why? Could it be he knew he couldn't win an appeal.
I wonder, if Trump or Johnson, had been vindicated by the respective courts that passed judgement on them would you still mistrust those courts?
Do you have any evidence of a failure of due process?
Or is the reason you question them solely because you don't like the outcome?
Because frankly, that is just a "waah waah waah I can't get my own way, it is just not fair waah waah" childish temper-tantrum.
Here's a basic primer on how The Law works:
The People Elect Governments.
Governments set Laws.
The Judiciary takes cases to examine if specific events have broken the law, and where they have the hand down sentences to the perpetrators.
There are several avenues of Appeal if a perpetrator is not happy with the judgement handed down to them.
If, at any point, the so called "Will Of The People" is at odds with the The Law the correct means of addressing that is for the "Will Of The People" to elect Governments who have pledged to change The Laws they disagree with.
The Will Of The People was to leave the EU - we did so.
Can you demonstrate a situation where the "Will Of The People", as expressed via a legal ballot, has been denied in this country?
All The Best
The government (the executive) creates the laws but they are then subject to "interpretation" by the courts. There's a fine line between interpreting the law and redefining the law and Blair's Supreme court is guilty of rewriting laws in some cases. When they ruled that Boris's prorogation of Parliament was illegal the judiciary moved very firmly into the area of what should be political decisions, and the reason was very obvious - most of the judges were anti-Brexit.
As for "The Will Of The People was to leave the EU - we did so" the over-ruling of the prorogation of Parliament meant that, with the connivance of the anti-Brexit Speaker, the opposition parties hijacked the govt's agenda and managed to propose and pass the "Surrender Act" which made it illegal for the govt to leave the EU under terms that the EU didn't agree. That was an act of treason and left the govt with no negotiating position.
As for Boris lying to Parliament he did not. He said that he was advised that no Covid laws had been broken. Boris lives in a separate flat (above no 11) and number 10 is a huge building with a vast number of people working in it - he can't be expected to know what's going on in every room. And after the police investigation (over 6 months) Boris was charged with ONE count of a accepting a surprise birthday cake while taking a work meeting - which was not a party. The guy who DID break the rules was Kier Starmer but the police let him off.
As for examples of the will of the people being denied we're spoilt for choice. Brexit is one example, as I've said above, where we ended up with a bad deal because our politicians (who are 75% remainer) fought Brexit all the way. And there's now the problem with attempting to deport illegal immigrants. Any attempt to do so ends up with a wall of immigration lawyers using "Human Rights" law (or case law to be accurate) to prevent their deportation.
It's getting to the point now that where the courts are now more powerful than the government - which is basically the end of democracy because we can't sack the judges.
They should be.
The Government creates the Law - the Judiciary enacts the law, even when, nay especially when the violator of the law is the Government itself.
Democracy does NOT mean having no legal restrictions on Government.
A Democracy that does not adhere to the Rule of Law is NOT a Democracy at all.
And YES we can remove Judges; both the Hoc and HoL can petition the Monarch to remove a Judge where there is evidence of wrongdoing (1701 Act of Settlement, and Senior Courts Act 1981).
How is the FACT that the UK voted to leave the EU AND we did IN FACT leave the EU an example of the Will Of The People being ignored?
I don't think you are using the standard English definitions of basic English Language words.
Remember we were polled on "DID we want to leave the EU" and NOT on "what kind of Brexit do you want".
All The Best
