Post-Brexit Thread

Originally Posted by nomadking

But if the decisions are purely based on Law they all decisions must be unanimous, mustn't they? If Judges X & Y have differing judgements, then in a case with a single Judge deciding, the decision could go either way depending on whether it was Judge X or Judge Y that was presiding.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i thought the law had to be clear not a matter of divided opinion - we already have a divided opinion .

No not at all ,higher courts have more than one judge so that a majority decision is reached in interpreting law,in these instances the judges are making the judgement .In criminal courts ,murder cases for example ,a single judge sits in authority but does not make any judgements of guilt or innocence ,that's the jury's job but again the same democratic principle applies and the majority vote is applied .

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

No not at all ,higher courts have more than one judge so that a majority decision is reached in interpreting law,in these instances the judges are making the judgement .In criminal courts ,murder cases for example ,a single judge sits in authority but does not make any judgements of guilt or innocence ,that's the jury's job but again the same democratic principle applies and the majority vote is applied .

Makes no difference. If you have a pool of Judges with differing opinions, then the outcome could be decided purely on the makeup of those selected, whether it is 3 or whatever number. It still could be based on a majority of one and which "side" that Judge was on.

From some of the Appeal court rulings that I've seen, one Judge takes the lead and writes the reasons for the ruling and the others just say that they agree or disagree. If there are 3 Judges, then there isn't 3 sets of reasons and rulings.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Makes no difference. If you have a pool of Judges with differing opinions, then the outcome could be decided purely on the makeup of those selected, whether it is 3 or whatever number. It still could be based on a majority of one and which "side" that Judge was on.

No it couldn't .A particular judge will voice his opinion on why a decision should go one way or the other ,he or she will then justify that reasoning with legal argument that other judges may or may not agree with ,Eventually a consensus will be reached where a majority of the judges will have their arguments accepted .No where in the process is 'how a judge feels' or 'what side' a judge is on is accepted as sound legal argument

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it couldn't .A particular judge will voice his opinion on why a decision should go one way or the other ,he or she will then justify that reasoning with legal argument that other judges may or may not agree with ,Eventually a consensus will be reached where a majority of the judges will have their arguments accepted .No where in the process is 'how a judge feels' or 'what side' a judge is on is accepted as sound legal argument

It will be reflected in which way they decide to rule on issues. They might not play Devil's Advocate if something is opposite to what they believe in. They can make a ruling based upon spurious reasons that can easily be discounted and overturned, if it wasn't the Supreme Court where no appeals are allowed.

Originally Posted by nomadking

It will be reflected in which way they decide to rule on issues. They might not play Devil's Advocate if something is opposite to what they believe in. They can make a ruling based upon spurious reasons that can easily be discounted and overturned, if it wasn't the Supreme Court where no appeals are allowed.

That simply is completely wrong

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Judges are not on any particular side and base all their decisions on their interpretation of law. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

They are human and as such have biases. The law, in this case, is open to interpretation. Therefore, their biases could sway their interpretation of the law.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

They are human and as such have biases. The law, in this case, is open to interpretation. Therefore, their biases could sway their interpretation of the law.

i read that most of them have an attachment to the EU that is likely to sway their opinion in a certain direction [not sure on the validity of that but if true its not good ]

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i read that most of them have an attachment to the EU that is likely to sway their opinion in a certain direction [not sure on the validity of that but if true its not good ]

Laid out here.

Legal commentators and experts had believed the court comprised overwhelmingly pro-Remain judges, with some expecting the Government would lose by a margin of 10 to one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-7-4-decision/

When judges make judgements they go to great pains to explain how and why they reached that judgement,they issue pages and pages of summaries ,they do not make judgements based on how they feel or what their politics are.We have many checks and balances to ensure that the judiciary remains independent from politics ,i think it was around 2010 that the judicial function of parliament was ended and the supreme court established .We now have Executive, Legislature and Judiciary all acting as a check on the other separating the powers and ensuring there is no bias in law .

I cannot believe the paranoia surrounding this court case.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

When judges make judgements they go to great pains to explain how and why they reached that judgement,they issue pages and pages of summaries ,they do not make judgements based on how they feel or what their politics are.We have many checks and balances to ensure that the judiciary remains independent from politics ,i think it was around 2010 that the judicial function of parliament was ended and the supreme court established .We now have Executive, Legislature and Judiciary all acting as a check on the other separating the powers and ensuring there is no bias in law .

I cannot believe the paranoia surrounding this court case.

Me neither, I thought it was what people voted for, for British judges to make decisions regarding the law. Iirc one of the plebs that brought the latest case is a conservative councilor who has campaigned for leaving Europe for 20 years, still I bet those credentials aren't enough for some to start questioning his intentions, like on here when some dunderhead calls me a remoaner

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i read that most of them have an attachment to the EU that is likely to sway their opinion in a certain direction [not sure on the validity of that but if true its not good ]

You need to stop reading your wildly influential daily newspapers papa as the old motto is only believe 5% of what you read in the newspapers as 95% of it is bollocks and propaganda.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Me neither, I thought it was what people voted for, for British judges to make decisions regarding the law. Iirc one of the plebs that brought the latest case is a conservative councilor who has campaigned for leaving Europe for 20 years, still I bet those credentials aren't enough for some to start questioning his intentions, like on here when some dunderhead calls me a remoaner

It's exactly what we voted for ,trouble is the fear that Brexit will be snatched away seems to overtake some peoples common sense .What's annoying me with some Brexiters is that for years people have rightly complained that the EU is slowly taking over the supreme authority of Parliament but as soon as someone suggests that Parliaments authority is exercised then people start moaning .

[Mr K]

I sense even those who voted for 'Brexit' aren't happy at the moment. Starting to get a bit sick of the word. What does it mean ? Nobody knows, but they have to keep justifying it to themselves anyway....

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr K

I sense even those who voted for 'Brexit' aren't happy at the moment. Starting to get a bit sick of the word. What does it mean ? Nobody knows, but they have to keep justifying it to themselves anyway....

I don't like the colours that keep being associated with it, gray, pink, and of course red, white and blue, at this rate and going by some of the anger shown the next one will be a black and blue brexit

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I don't like the colours that keep being associated with it, gray, pink, and of course red, white and blue, at this rate and going by some of the anger shown the next one will be a black and blue brexit

its ok the government are doing it in crayon so the remain camp can get their heads around it