Legislation to let Government 'correct' court judgments

[bitchstewie]

Who needs enemies of the people judges anyway?

Dominic Raab: I’ll overhaul the Human Rights Act to stop Strasbourg dictating to us

Just sit back and relax and let the Government decide when the courts are right or wrong.

Oh and not just those pesky foreign courts.

What could possibly go wrong

[Vanden Saab]

Parliament passes laws and judges interpret them. If Parliament considers that judges have not interpreted their laws correctly they then change the law to correct the judges misinterpretation.
This is how our system of democracy has worked successfully for a very long time. If you disagree with this system you can get yourself and enough others elected to change it or lobby a political party to do so.

[anonymous-user]

Vanden Saab said:

Parliament passes laws and judges interpret them. If Parliament considers that judges have not interpreted their laws correctly they then change the law to correct the judges misinterpretation.
This is how our system of democracy has worked successfully for a very long time. If you disagree with this system you can get yourself and enough others elected to change it or lobby a political party to do so.

How do Strasburg ''dictate'' to us in Human rights aspect, which this is what it seems about?

[bitchstewie]

Vanden Saab said:

Parliament passes laws and judges interpret them. If Parliament considers that judges have not interpreted their laws correctly they then change the law to correct the judges misinterpretation.
This is how our system of democracy has worked successfully for a very long time. If you disagree with this system you can get yourself and enough others elected to change it or lobby a political party to do so.

We already have things called Acts of Parliament.

The Telegraph said:

Asked about his plans to reform the Human Rights Act, Mr Raab revealed that he is devising a "mechanism" to allow the Government to introduce ad hoc legislation to "correct" court judgments that ministers believe are "incorrect".

What might that mechanism be?

[Vanden Saab]

bhstewie said:

Vanden Saab said:

Parliament passes laws and judges interpret them. If Parliament considers that judges have not interpreted their laws correctly they then change the law to correct the judges misinterpretation.
This is how our system of democracy has worked successfully for a very long time. If you disagree with this system you can get yourself and enough others elected to change it or lobby a political party to do so.

We already have things called Acts of Parliament.

We do, these acts are constantly being changed by Parliament to reflect the wishes of the people who elect members of Parliament to do the job. We also incorporate international law into a form that can be used in the UK. You seem to be suggesting that some laws are not allowed to be updated because you think that they are fine as they stand. Others disagree with you which is why they are going to be changed.
As I said before if you do not want them to be changed all you have to do is get a majority of the MPs that pass the laws to agree with your pov.
HTH

[bitchstewie]

Of course laws can be changed or updated by Parliament.

I'm suggesting there doesn't seem very much wrong with the mechanisms we have for doing so.

Raab seems to be suggesting he wants to devise a new "mechanism" to quickly correct court judgements that ministers (not Parliament) disagree with.

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

Of course laws can be changed or updated by Parliament.

I'm suggesting there doesn't seem very much wrong with the mechanisms we have for doing so.

Raab seems to be suggesting he wants to devise a new "mechanism" to quickly correct court judgements that ministers (not Parliament) disagree with.

The Tory party seem to be using smoke and mirrors to erode freedoms in this country whilst selling the ideas to their right wing supporters. Jut look ar how quickly freedoms are eroded in the pursuit of total control. It really is entering a new era that doesnt look good.

[vonuber]

bhstewie said:

Of course laws can be changed or updated by Parliament.

I'm suggesting there doesn't seem very much wrong with the mechanisms we have for doing so.

Raab seems to be suggesting he wants to devise a new "mechanism" to quickly correct court judgements that ministers (not Parliament) disagree with.

Seems perfectly reasonable, how else are they going to enrich themselves or their mates?

[barryrs]

You could tell who started this topic just from the title!

[Derek Smith]

It's perfectly reasonable. What he's saying is that a law, which has gone through the various stages: readings, committees, reports, more readings, voted on, gone to the Lords, maybe back again, then voted on again, signed by Her Maj, gods bless her, before becoming law, a lone MP who doesn't really like it can change it on a whim.

You see, it’s just as VP said:

Vanden Saab said:

If you disagree with [the current parliamentary] system you can get yourself . . . elected

and make up your own laws regardless of what all the MPs and the voters want.

Can’t see anything wrong with that. Big fuss about nothing. Democracy only slows things down.

[bitchstewie]

barryrs said:

You could tell who started this topic just from the title!

Just using the words of that famous leftie rag The Telegraph.

Sorry if I've upset you Barry.

[Derek Smith]

barryrs said:

You could tell who started this topic just from the title!

You do know that 'strawman' isn't the same as the film Wicker Man, don't you?

[bitchstewie]

Derek Smith said:

You do know that 'strawman' isn't the same as the film Wicker Man, don't you?

It's funny how rather than ask "why are they doing it?" people would rather complain that someone else has asked why are they doing it.

That nice Mr Raab is doing it all in our best interests presumably.

No awkward questions.

[Vanden Saab]

bhstewie said:

Just using the words of that famous leftie rag The Telegraph.

Sorry if I've upset you Barry.

Raab said:

“We’re identifying the problems and we’re making sure we fix them,” Raab said. “Where there have been judgments that, albeit properly and duly delivered by the courts, we think are wrong, the right thing is for Parliament to legislate to correct them.”

where did you get the idea that ministers were going to do it? Have you been reading the guardian again or is it politico.eu ah yes there it is...

politico said:

Mark Elliott, Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge wrote on Twitter. “The Justice Secretary proposes to enable ministers to ‘correct’ court judgments that they consider ‘incorrect’. This raises profound constitutional concerns.”

Same remainer st different day

[bitchstewie]

Everything I've mentioned or quoted is from the Telegraph article.

I have no idea why you've mentioned Politico or the Guardian or what it has to do with remain.

You haven't said why you think Raab needs new "mechanisms" for ministers to quickly deal with court judgements they don't like.

[valiant]

With anything like this and with those who accept it simply because Tory/Brexit/whatever seemingly without question is imagine the other lot trying to introduce this.

Would you be as accepting?

[Electro1980]

This clearly isn’t the same as Parliament creating acts as it does. This appears to be an authoritarian grab for power to give the government the ability to overrule the judiciary. Everyone should be worried by this. The government should not be trying to “correct” court rulings. We have a separation between state and judiciary for a good reason.

[g3org3y]

Electro1980 said:

This clearly isn’t the same as Parliament creating acts as it does. This appears to be an authoritarian grab for power to give the government the ability to overrule the judiciary. Everyone should be worried by this. The government should not be trying to “correct” court rulings. We have a separation between state and judiciary for a good reason.

Read this to understand how clueless politicians are about 'the law'.

[sunbeam alpine]

Electro1980 said:

This clearly isn’t the same as Parliament creating acts as it does. This appears to be an authoritarian grab for power to give the government the ability to overrule the judiciary. Everyone should be worried by this. The government should not be trying to “correct” court rulings. We have a separation between state and judiciary for a good reason.

The reality is that the UK has a government with a sizeable majority, a Prime Minister who - despite his misbehaviour - remains immensely popular with a large section of society, and a complete lack of credible opposition. It is not a healthy position for any democracy.

By the time enough people realise what is happening, it may be too late.

[bitchstewie]

There's a very simple litmus test which is imagine heavens forbid we had Prime Minister Corbyn and you woke up one day to hear him telling the Morning Star "Next we need to be able to quickly deal with those pesky courts interfering and judges making the wrong decisions".

What would the reaction be?