Johnson’s Suspending Of Parliament Was Unlawful: UK Court Rules

• On Tuesday, U.K.’s top court unanimously ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend the UK Parliament was unlawful. Johnson suspended parliament five weeks earlier this month.
• Following the ruling, the opposition is asking for the PM to resign.
• PM claims that he suspended parliament to prepare for the new session. The critics, however, argue that the objective of the decision was to suppress opposition over Brexit.
• Commenting on the ruling, the PM said that he "strongly disagrees" with it, but will "respect" it. Though many see it as a setback for Johnson, he still insists on “delivering on the will of the people to come out of the EU on Oct. 31.”
• It must be noted that parliament has already passed legislation to seek an extension to Brexit talks with Jan. 31 deadline if the negotiations fail by the end of October.
• Johnson, however, is refusing to make any such request to the EU. Moreover, he is also calling for a national election in a hope to win big enough majority to carry forward with his Brexit plan. Opposition parties are resisting the election.
View Analysis

Left View

UK court ruling: a critical contrast for us to acknowledge 

Applause for the courts. Though the U.K. doesn’t even have a written, tangible constitution as we do in the U.S., they operate and rule by virtue of a fluid, unwritten constitution. And even that fluid constitution was instituted accordingly to stop a prime minister who is acting against all moral and legal procedures. Imagine if we had courts who upheld our principles, which come in the form of tangible documents that we all know so well: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Executive overreach is precisely when checks and balances are supposed to kick in, but with our facade of a government, we’ve got Trump loyalists in every corner to stop attempts at holding the president accountable for his continual breaching of the rule of law.

Truly remarkable was that the UK Supreme Court unanimously delivered the ruling, with clear language explaining and defining the premises that informed their decision. Though the courts try not to interfere in politics, Johnson’s actions were clearly illegal and were found to be so. Meanwhile, we are stuck with a Supreme Court that is a concentration of extreme political motivations who cannot deliver objective opinions based on law. They merely deliver based on party interests.

The UK showed very clearly today that this is how you hold an unfit elected official accountable. And as is obvious, Johnson’s admiration for the Trumpian brand of politics wasn’t warmly received by the UK’s robust system of true divisions of power, proving to be dedicated to protecting democracy. This event holds up a mirror to our own current situation, and shows that we are truly in a dire state when it comes to accountability and effectiveness within our courts and government. It’s a true shame. Lead by example, the saying goes. And perhaps, this time, we'll follow.

Right View

Boris Johnson did the right thing 

I thought that liberals only acted this way in the US. But this news comes to show that trends aren’t exclusive to fashion designs and music. I hate to say it, but I’m afraid the UK has caught a case of Liberal Lockjaw. For all their efforts and claims of “open mindedness” and “inclusivity”, little comes to show for it when they try so silence people who were elected by popular vote to carry out the objectives they were voted in for.

One of such is a no-deal Brexit! Johnson didn’t come up with Brexit. No, in fact, he’s dealing with it because David Cameron put the question on the table. Do we stay, or do we go? The people said, we should go. Now Johnson, along with the rest of the UK, is scratching his head thinking—“Why haven’t we gone yet?” And if the taxi driver who was supposed to take you to the airport doesn’t show up, do you just never take off? Do you just stand there pretending you weren’t going to leave? No! You’ve got to get creative. And if freezing Parliament is what it takes, so be it.
The government can’t ask people for their voices to be heard only to diminish it into meaningless rubble. And if that’s what they want, they should be forthright and establish a dictatorship. Then everyone will keep their mouth shut as they exercise what they think is best for the people.

But if they’re going to pretend there’s a real decision-making process with the best interests of the public in mind, Britain’s top court is not fooling anyone. Unelected judges have a higher power than that of the prime minister. The will of the people is an afterthought. I would send my condolences to the UK, but it’s not a stretch to say that we need them here also.