Thursday, 26 November 2009

The High Court of Parliament

Having abolished the Law Lords in the service of the peculiarly American theory of the separation of powers, They presumably also wish to abolish all quasi-judicial functions of Ministers or of local council chairmen, as well as the role of the judges in making the whole of the Common Law, and much else besides. All because of something that They once heard on The Wire, or The Simpsons, or whatever.

And then what? As will eventually be found to be the case, both trial by jury and trial by magistrates are contrary to Their other pet cause, the jurisprudence of a foreign court interpreting a foreign document. They, who object to the quasi-judicial powers of Ministers accountable to Parliament, also loathe both juries and magistrates, and for the same reason, namely hatred of the people at large.

Without a resolution of the House of Commons (itself elected more proportionally and from candidates selected by means of something like an open primary system), no ruling of the European Court of Justice, nor or of the European Court of Human Rights, nor of the Supreme Court, nor pursuant to the Human Rights Act, should have any effect in the United Kingdom. The High Court of Parliament is precisely that: The High Court of Parliament.

And as such, it cannot co-exist with a Supreme Court detached from Parliament and, being Supreme, both enjoying and, soon enough, exercising the right to strike down the Statute Law with no one to in any position to do anything about this monstrous overthrow of democracy and liberty.

The present judiciary is riddled with old Communist Party activists and the like from back in the day. As in the form of New Labour, a project which now controls both parties, the student sectarian Left of the 1968 generation has now staged its coup.


  1. "a Supreme Court detached from Parliament and, being Supreme, both enjoying and, soon enough, exercising the right to strike down the Statute Law"

    Tell me more about this. What's your legal authority? Factortame? HRA s4? One allows the court, in limited circumstances, for limited purposes, to disapply some provisions of UK law and instead apply contrary EC regulations-as was explicitly envisaged in an Act of the sovereign UK Parliament. The other allows all superior courts to state, where they come to that conclusions, that a provision of primary legislation is incompatible with HRA rights. The section is also absolutely explicit in saying that the legal force of the provisions is unchanged by the making of a declaration of incompatibility. A DoI doesn't even affect the legal rights or standing of the parties to the case.

    So, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here.

  2. This is the only reason to have a Supreme Court, and this is certainly what it will do.

  3. Again, what's your basis for saying this? What legal or political instrument, in your view, gives the Supreme Court (which is simply a continuation, albeit under a new name, of the judicial role of the House of Lords) this power? Because if you have discovered one, legal academics in this country would love to know about it.

  4. Oh, they have been advocating this for ever, or at least for a very long time. They are part of the gang.

    If it were simply a continuation, then things would have been left as they were. The only reason for a Court detached from Parliament and rendered Supreme is to strike down statutes with nothing that can be done when that happens. That is the whole point of the thing.

  5. Who is 'they' and where have 'they' been advocating this? Again, I don't think you seem to understand: in fact and in law, the UK Supreme Court has no more powers than did the House of Lords sitting as a final court of appeal. These powers do not include the ability to strike down primary legislation.

    If you know any differently, could you please cite authority?