The sanctity of the Supreme Court

[oggbashan]

The reason it is different here is probably because we have a written constitution.

So do we. But it is not a single easily understood document but a whole mess of laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Some claim that The Human Rights Act of 1998 and our membership of the EU has modified and superseded parts of the UK's Constitution.

 

[Kirkrapine]

So do we. But it is not a single easily understood document but a whole mess of laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Some claim that The Human Rights Act of 1998 and our membership of the EU has modified and superseded parts of the UK's Constitution.

Will that apply after you leave it?

 

[oggbashan]

Will that apply after you leave it?

Who knows? It depends on the outcome of the negotiations.

We will still have the Human Rights Act - probably - but with the UK Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter.

 

[LupusDei]

You're Russian? (No offense intended if you're actually Ukrainian, etc.)

Latvian.

No offense taken, although there quite a bit of mutual hate, some ancient, some not so much.

This is probably not a place for a history lesson, but...

The strong association USSR = Russian only proves the point it was little more than Russian empire with somewhat crazy government, but even that wasn't actually anything new. At least since the Ivan the Terrible, the book burner, among other things. Sheremetev wrote back to him that Vidzeme (part of Latvia, funny, can be translated as Middle Earth) is looted to the point "no rooster could hear another." Rīga city, then still impenetrable fortress as founded by Christian knights (predominantly German speaking) to be basis for their conquest of the thirteen century, sued for peace after bloody siege through the winter killed more than half of the inhabitants, mostly by plague and famine. But that Latvia born girl that ascended to Russian throne after they brought her to Moscow as capture of war, wasn't actually much better.

And, we have to take same, for Latvian (red) Riflemen become Lenin personal bodyguards and the single most battle-capable fire brigade of the Russian civil war, according to the legend at some point winning fights just by news of their arrival, opponents fleeing for their lives in horror. When Latvian independence was declared in 1918, part of them took an armoured train and went home, no permission asked, none needed, nobody was fool enough to try to stop them. Others remained, for an ill fate. It's even rumored, first KGB meetings were held in Latvian, partially believable as our guy Jukums Vācietis was the first Marshall of the USSR (funny, his name can be translated as Crazy German). It falls under his supervision Guderian and Tukhachevsky worked out the concept of blizkrieg in Russian training grounds. Too bad Stalin killed them all, great part of why he wasn't ready for the war.

What they did in single year of occupation in 1940 made Germans to be welcomed as liberators. And that's despite seven centuries referred as slavery to German barons. Our guys volunteering in Waffen SS hoped to pull the same trick again their fathers did after the previous war, fight out the independence after the empires had killed each other. No such luck, even if Hitler left Curland pocket behind. Bloody battles those were in the final days of war, and my grandfather's brothers possibly meet there, as conscripts on opposite sides. He himself was proud to not have fired once in that war, despite had to wearing both uniforms in turn, and deserted twice; he had to spend two years at POW camp in far east anyway, then hike the entire Russia the long way to get home.

Irony of that war? We are literally the very mythical Arians reih crazies fought to resemble, still we were on the list of nations to be exterminated on the longer term, just because they too seemed confusing us with Russians just because of broadly generalised geography.

In 1989 we demonstrated that two million people (out of total population of less than eigh) can join hands to form a human chain spanning 675.5 kilometres (419.7 mi) across three states – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Scarry thing, it was flashmob style, traffic was stopped for less than a hour, and there was very little command structure, just general guidance on public radio. You can't fight that by force realistically, without total carnage anyway.

1991 we re-declared our independence. To have a chance to rebuild our country as a national state, we couldn't allow to automatically grant citizenship to colonists settled during soviet occupation, mainly attracted as workers in the artificially build soviet industry that imported most supplies and exported all production. So, we effectively disenfranchised about 715,000 people, almost exclusively Russian speakers, creating unique legal status of non-citizens. It wasn't very nice, I get it, and they of course got offended. Some 238,000 are still not obtained citizenship, either not bothering or deciding to remain offended, mostly over single question in history quiz that require to admit that Latvia was occupied by USSR, but that runs contrary to their WW2 mythology.

We are very used to Russian bulshit. That campaign of anti-science and general confusion that America noticed cause of Trump isn't anything new, it is steady run for something like two decades by mow. To the point I know parents forbidding children to learn Russian on grounds that's keeping them away from bad company and shield from misinformation. Seriously, I have spoken with teachers towing statistics around, showing inverse correlation between knowledge of Russian and median of all other grades. I suppose, that doesn't really apply to bilingual education in former Russian schools that is proven to be very competitive. It's still unclear though why Latvian state should keep state financed education in Russian, if even partially as it is now, but every move against that is international scandal and well, some 30% do speak Russian at home. Funny, linguists are busy documenting how a new dialect is forming, it isn't really Russia Russian anymore.

Now, we shrug on East Europe moniker (mostly including slavic nations we are not) and try to rebrand as part of North Europe, where we do not truly belong either (except Estonia, they might indeed), but still much closer by temper. Funny fact, geographical center of Europe as continent is just south of Rīga, either in Latvia or Lithuania depending with side of the border on what methodology is used for calculation of the exact spot.

 

[DeYaKen]

The reason it is different here is probably because we have a written constitution.

The UK has no written constitution because of the impartiality of the judiciary, not the other way round. Our constitution is based on case law, decided by judges. I can't say that the British wholly trust the judiciary, but they trust them a lot more than they trust politicians. For us, it is important that the judiciary is not under the control of the government. I can't speak for Supreme court members but in the days of Law lords, they were not even allowed to vote.

A written constitution is a licence for lawyers to print money. English, even US English is an ambiguous beast and as years go by meanings change. You only have to look at the arguments about your second amendment to see that. A written constitution that was not open to interpretation would need to be written in a non-ambiguous language like the formal definition language 'Z' The problem with that is that only mathematicians would understand it.

 

[oggbashan]

The advantage of the UK's written constitution (which IS written but in a complex set of documents) is that it can be reinterpreted and modified in small incremental steps easily and often by political consensus.

The Law Lords, and now the Supreme Court, were/are the ultimate arbiter of what the UK's constitution says and means. The only significant recent decision on the UK's Constitution was the Supreme Court's decision that the UK could only invoke Article 50 to start the process of leaving the EU after a vote in Parliament because we joined the EU by an Act of Parliament.

That was a procedural decision and said nothing at all about the merits or demerits of invoking Article 50. The judgement was about HOW to do it, not whether it was a good or bad idea.

Part of the reason why the UK's constitution is complex is because it includes laws particular to Scotland and Northern Ireland and the concept of rights and benefits enjoyed since "Time Immemorial" originally before 6 July 1189.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial

For example, the property laws of the County of Kent included Gavelkind. In Kent Gavelkind was considered one of the existing laws and customs that the Fyrd of Kent (a citizen militia) demanded from William the Conqueror in 1066 as the price of allowing him free passage towards London. Gavelkind and the peculiar laws of Kent are/were part of the UK's constitution and subsequently incorporated in written laws and amended by Acts of Parliament.

 

[gunthernehmen]

That would depend on what the meaning of the word 'advantage' is.

 

[DeYaKen]

That would depend on what the meaning of the word 'advantage' is.

That is something teams of lawyers could argue about for years. Or until the money ran out.

 

[gunthernehmen]

That is something teams of lawyers could argue about for years. Or until the money ran out.

It was a wisecrack, but you'd have had to be following American politics maybe 20 years ago to get it.

Lawyers primary purpose in our society is to burn money.

What do you call 1,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

 

[oggbashan]

That is something teams of lawyers could argue about for years. Or until the money ran out.

Lawyers arguing about details of the UK's constitution is an unending money-pit. It also gives UK law students nightmares.

 

[Kirkrapine]

A written constitution is a licence for lawyers to print money.

So, there is no actual down side.

(I'm a lawyer.)

 

[Kirkrapine]

The advantage of the UK's written constitution (which IS written but in a complex set of documents) is that it can be reinterpreted and modified in small incremental steps easily and often by political consensus.

The Law Lords, and now the Supreme Court, were/are the ultimate arbiter of what the UK's constitution says and means. The only significant recent decision on the UK's Constitution was the Supreme Court's decision that the UK could only invoke Article 50 to start the process of leaving the EU after a vote in Parliament because we joined the EU by an Act of Parliament.

That was a procedural decision and said nothing at all about the merits or demerits of invoking Article 50. The judgement was about HOW to do it, not whether it was a good or bad idea.

Part of the reason why the UK's constitution is complex is because it includes laws particular to Scotland and Northern Ireland and the concept of rights and benefits enjoyed since "Time Immemorial" originally before 6 July 1189.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial

For example, the property laws of the County of Kent included Gavelkind. In Kent Gavelkind was considered one of the existing laws and customs that the Fyrd of Kent (a citizen militia) demanded from William the Conqueror in 1066 as the price of allowing him free passage towards London. Gavelkind and the peculiar laws of Kent are/were part of the UK's constitution and subsequently incorporated in written laws and amended by Acts of Parliament.

Your country has entirely too much history.

 

[oggbashan]

Your country has entirely too much history.

True. Within a few miles of where I live I have three World Heritage Sites (or one - depends how you count), a Roman fort, a Saxon church, remains of a Bronze Age village and a Roman shipwreck that has provided generations of locals with high quality pottery for making jam tarts.

Local children search the shoreline for fossilised sharks teeth from millions of years ago and sometimes find Roman coins in the sand.

Charles Dickens lived and wrote books close by; Van Gogh taught art at a local school; Turner painted our sunsets; Queen Elizabeth the 1st visited; Cromwell knocked our castle about; and after Henry VIII one of our churches (of which we had too many) was turned into a brewery.

 

[Kirkrapine]

. . . and after Henry VIII one of our churches (of which we had too many) was turned into a brewery.

A very sensible people, then.

 

[naughtymind]

Leftists are like cry babies. It is all fun with politics when left wing wins, but there is all cry and "sanctity lost" when they lose. Really sore losers.

Next time they will say that right wing justices are not real justices, because those are only and always left wingers (leftists said that in one of european coutries - they even keep their hands on wikipedia page to ensure that their insanity is the truth of wikipedia).

The absurd broadness of those statements aside, I fundamentally differ with your overall take on a few levels. Most importantly, I don’t see any particular side “winning” or “loosing” when we talk politics: while we may have different perspectives and ideologies, the theory is, and has always been “for the good of the American People”. That means you, and me. Who exactly “wins” when we move further towards extremism and polarity? Big hint: it isn’t the right wing, or the left wing, or you, or me...

Personally, I am far from being a “sore looser”, but I will always work (not whine, not cry, etc) towards making the world just a little bit better, and I won’t be one of the silent ones when I see our core foundations being threatened or eroded. I would hope for as much from my friends and neighbors who have opposing political views as well! I would hope they would do so in more mature, respectful, and productive ways than say mock lynching effigies of the president (as some right wing loonies did when Obama was president).

Perhaps you missed the overall thrust of my post, but I’m not writing any of this with interest in trading insults; I’m legitimately concerned that we are witnessing a radical fringe pervert the basic roles of government. Too many are so locked into such a short narrow focus of “winning” political battles that we’re loosing our ability for big picture perspectives. This consolation of power is very much contrary to how our branches of government were outlined by our founding fathers, and does not serve any of our long term interests well. I don’t expect you to agree with much of my political views, but it is in your best interest and mine to consider that these are the perspectives of your own strongest allies.
United we stand, divided we fall...

 

[Kirkrapine]

Next time they will say that right wing justices are not real justices, because those are only and always left wingers (leftists said that in one of european coutries - they even keep their hands on wikipedia page to ensure that their insanity is the truth of wikipedia).

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[AdrianHot]

The absurd broadness of those statements aside, I fundamentally differ with your overall take on a few levels. Most importantly, I don’t see any particular side “winning” or “loosing” when we talk politics: while we may have different perspectives and ideologies, the theory is, and has always been “for the good of the American People”. That means you, and me. Who exactly “wins” when we move further towards extremism and polarity? Big hint: it isn’t the right wing, or the left wing, or you, or me...

Personally, I am far from being a “sore looser”, but I will always work (not whine, not cry, etc) towards making the world just a little bit better, and I won’t be one of the silent ones when I see our core foundations being threatened or eroded. I would hope for as much from my friends and neighbors who have opposing political views as well! I would hope they would do so in more mature, respectful, and productive ways than say mock lynching effigies of the president (as some right wing loonies did when Obama was president).

Perhaps you missed the overall thrust of my post, but I’m not writing any of this with interest in trading insults; I’m legitimately concerned that we are witnessing a radical fringe pervert the basic roles of government. Too many are so locked into such a short narrow focus of “winning” political battles that we’re loosing our ability for big picture perspectives. This consolation of power is very much contrary to how our branches of government were outlined by our founding fathers, and does not serve any of our long term interests well. I don’t expect you to agree with much of my political views, but it is in your best interest and mine to consider that these are the perspectives of your own strongest allies.
United we stand, divided we fall...

You are wrong. There is a cultural war going on. One side likes "political correctness", "trigger warnings", "safe spaces", "globalization" and "multiculturalism" and other side is opposing this "way of life". This war is just a next stage of war against evil, totalitarian communism and this "PC-culture" is just an another phase of communism. Humanity will prevail and once again win against communism.

This is big picture.

As of unity similar kind of struggle is now taking place in Europe. Communists (and nazis) are trying to reestablish an evil empire, but people of Europe are opposing them and have won in couple of coutries and will probably win more.

"Who exactly “wins” when we move further towards extremism and polarity?" What do you call "extremism" and "polarity"? Polarity as in humanity vs communists?

 

[KeithD]

I'm sure it suits your agenda to see just two sides to this, but that's a bunch of hooey. People are more complex than this.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You are wrong. There is a cultural war going on. One side likes "political correctness", "trigger warnings", "safe spaces", "globalization" and "multiculturalism" and other side is opposing this "way of life". This war is just a next stage of war against evil, totalitarian communism and this "PC-culture" is just an another phase of communism. Humanity will prevail and once again win against communism.

What do multiculturalism or globalization or safe spaces have to do with communism?

 

[dan_c00000]

mostly in countries once in the British empire where British expatriates settle to tell everyone where they still should be in the pecking order.

You do know you've basically describe the U.S.'s foreign policy in the 20th century right?

You act like we Americans haven't overthrown governments to install dictators more friendly to the U.S. or supplied troops to a counter-revolution.

 

[KeithD]

You do know you've basically describe the U.S.'s foreign policy in the 20th century right?

You act like we Americans haven't overthrown governments to install dictators more friendly to the U.S. or supplied troops to a counter-revolution.

No, I'm describing British expatriates I've encountered in long residence outside the United States and continued communications with them. And I have advanced degrees in foreign policy and a long career in doing it, so you can take what you think I'm "basically describing" and stick it where the sun don't shine.

I have no idea whatsoever why you ascribed the "acting" to me that you have. Sorry, I don't see how that fits into anything I've posted. Don't bother to explain--you're too far out in left field on that for me to care how you've made such a ridiculous assertion. American foreign policy instincts aren't expansionist as the British ones are; they are isolationist. We do what we do abroad to try to keep nasty things from happening in the homeland. The British have always wanted to control territory abroad to expand what is English and to establish a pecking order with the British on top (they have gone to the lengths of shuffling the pecking orders within their colonies to ensure the British are on top and whoever was once on top in that area is now down the pecking order a couple of classes). The American instinct is just to keep everyone but a certain look/origin out.

 

[naughtymind]

You are wrong. There is a cultural war going on. One side likes "political correctness", "trigger warnings", "safe spaces", "globalization" and "multiculturalism" and other side is opposing this "way of life". This war is just a next stage of war against evil, totalitarian communism and this "PC-culture" is just an another phase of communism. Humanity will prevail and once again win against communism.

This is big picture.

As of unity similar kind of struggle is now taking place in Europe. Communists (and nazis) are trying to reestablish an evil empire, but people of Europe are opposing them and have won in couple of coutries and will probably win more.

"Who exactly “wins” when we move further towards extremism and polarity?" What do you call "extremism" and "polarity"? Polarity as in humanity vs communists?

I see, and just so I get this straight: in this cultural war, just how much do you trust your government to do the right thing? I don’t trust anyone with too much power or lack of accountability personally: that always seems to create a drunken like lust for power that is never quenched. Call it human nature, I suppose, but those with too much power and no accountability have a very poor track record at self policing. That, is what this concern is about!

You’re not concerned with checks and balances on power, or the expansion of presidential powers? Perhaps you trust that Trump, and the Republicans who control Congress, and now the Courts, are all “on the good side” and would never cheat, lie, or scam the American people, and will always act with our best interests at heart? What about when “your side” isn’t in control of the executive branch, or the legislative branch, or the judicial branch? What if/when progressive Democrats control all three branches; would you not find cause for alarm then? Personally I’m not really comfortable with ANYONE having too much power without substantial accountability; whether they say things I like or not history shows that is a very dangerous thing (ironic you mention the nazis)!

I’m sure there are some who would very much like to view the world through the lense you describe; as a cultural war between good and evil, but I do not. It sounds like a miserable place to be honest, and there are much better options, so I’ll pass on engaging in cultural warfare of any sort. I would suggest however, that if you wish to win your war, you would first need a much better understanding of just who/what your enemy is. It appears that you don’t have many liberal friends or relatives in your life; your buzzwords kind of miss the mark by a long shot in terms of what an overwhelming majority of liberals, and moderates want most.

I could care less about what is PC, nor do I get suckered into hyped up rage by the latest shock jock making huge amounts of money by sewing seeds of paranoia and division. I do care very much about our personal liberties and freedoms, ALL of them for EVERYONE (even you)! I care about a lot of things, and I’m kind ok with the idea that the world will likely never be able to live up to all of those ideals, so long as the basic framework is intact to allow for each and every one of us to continue to work together towards a better life for all. Funny, I don’t really consider any of those ideals “evil”, nor apparently did our founding fathers given their careful choice of words when writing our constitution.

Whether you recognize this moment or not, I’m pretty sure that future generations WILL look at this particular period in our nations history and wonder: “how could they not see the writing on the wall”? Again, this is all about a distinct failure in the role and function of our government as the founding fathers envisioned: the separations/limits of power was THE central concept in the writing of our constitution. This urgent concern about consolidation and/or abuse of power is quite evident in the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 11th amendments, and in a way, even in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments which specifically address issues related to enforcement and prosecution of our laws. They were very right to have such concerns!!!

To better understand my point about polarity and extremism try this very simple experiment: take about 20-30 or so twigs, and separate them into a few distinct piles. One or two piles of individual twigs at each end for the most extreme positions, a pile of 2-3 twigs to represent the “far left” and another to represent the “far right”, and for simplicity split the rest roughly in half to represent the middle right and left. Experiment with breaking each group, note how easily those with fewer allies are broken; further experiment by moving the more extreme/vulnerable into a more moderate group (compromise/democracy) and not how much stronger they get. The difference is surprising if you’ve never done this before! Just imagine what could be accomplished if more unity could be found! Also imagine how weak and splintered we could become if we do not recognize the importance of coming together!

In a nutshell that’s my take on things, if you don’t get it, or don’t want to that’s your right, but I think you might come to realize at some point that you’ve thrown your support behind something that does not serve your interests. I dare you to actually try the experiment and ponder its implications, it says more than I can to the truism of “United we stand, and divided we fall”!

 

[DeYaKen]

No, I'm describing British expatriates I've encountered in long residence outside the United States and continued communications with them. And I have advanced degrees in foreign policy and a long career in doing it, so you can take what you think I'm "basically describing" and stick it where the sun don't shine.

I have no idea whatsoever why you ascribed the "acting" to me that you have. Sorry, I don't see how that fits into anything I've posted. Don't bother to explain--you're too far out in left field on that for me to care how you've made such a ridiculous assertion. American foreign policy instincts aren't expansionist as the British ones are; they are isolationist. We do what we do abroad to try to keep nasty things from happening in the homeland. The British have always wanted to control territory abroad to expand what is English and to establish a pecking order with the British on top (they have gone to the lengths of shuffling the pecking orders within their colonies to ensure the British are on top and whoever was once on top in that area is now down the pecking order a couple of classes). The American instinct is just to keep everyone but a certain look/origin out.

You are describing pre-war British foreign policy. Since the 1960s we have been divesting ourselves of colonies and protectorates. Even Scotland can have independence if the people vote for it. What protectorates there are, govern themselves unless, of course, that government is not liked by the USA. In which case the USA will, without consultation, invade said protectorate by force of arms and install a government more friendly towards them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/26/us-troops-invade-grenada-archive

 

[dan_c00000]

Don't bother to explain--you're too far out in left field on

How is accurately describing U.S. foreign policy (using your words) left field? You posted a lot of words but you contradicted yourself pretty much instantly.

Even if I am out in left field it doesn't make what I've said (again using your words) any less true. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You are wrong. There is a cultural war going on. One side likes "political correctness", "trigger warnings", "safe spaces", "globalization" and "multiculturalism" and other side is opposing this "way of life". This war is just a next stage of war against evil, totalitarian communism and this "PC-culture" is just an another phase of communism. Humanity will prevail and once again win against communism.

What do multiculturalism or globalization or safe spaces have to do with communism?

I repeat.