How many times now has this been pointed out to recent cabinet’s ministers:
>“Many of the attacks by the executive on the judiciary step outside what is constitutionally proper or helpful. Their tone and content often suggests that ministers know better than judges how to determine complex issues of law. This is transparently not the case,”
OK but who, what, where, when on any action as a result?
I didn’t think the UK actually had a constitution. What does it mean when people say this ‘threatens the constitution’? Are they just speaking figuratively?? I’ve always been perplexed by this.
Tories scumbags ‘ improper’ attacks on judges threaten the constitution, parliamentary inquiry concludes,
5 comments
>Judges have been subjected to increased political scrutiny over the past few years and certain rulings have attracted significant media attention. One example, given in the report, is the Supreme Court *Miller/Cherry* ruling that found Boris Johnson’s government had acted unlawfully when it decided to prorogue parliament for five weeks in 2019.
>
>Kwasi Kwarteng, who was a business minister at the time, [told the *BBC*](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49670901) that “many people” believed the judges were biased. An “unnamed source” from Downing Street [briefed *The Sun*](https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/downing-street-revives-enemies-of-the-people-row/5101413.article) that the judges were “politically biased” and Jacob Rees-Mogg reportedly [described the ruling to colleagues](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261) as a “constitutional coup”.
>
>Then-attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox claimed that the Supreme Court had “[made new law](https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-09-25/debates/F3541B98-D4E9-487F-BE17-D51C6EF870F2/LegalAdviceProrogation)” in order to rule against the prorogation, something the report authors argue “misrepresented both the powers of the court and the reasoning of its decision”.
>
>In October 2021, the current attorney general Suella Braverman criticised the “[huge increase in political litigation](https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/judicial-review-trends-and-forecasts-2021-accountability-and-the-constitution)” in a speech at Policy Exchange and accused the Supreme Court of stepping into matters of “high policy” in the Miller case.
>
>([🪞 link](https://archive.ph/Lsq3V))
You ever have one of those converations when you have to keep pointing out what should be obvious enough even to a ‘[plank](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/US_Navy_090513-N-1060K-122_Ship_restorers_Chris_Hanlon%2C_bottom%2C_and_Paul_Chiasson_line_up_a_new_plank_of_white_oak_along_USS_Constitution%27s_starboard_side.jpg)’ because the other are so wrapped up in shite and could not be bothered to listen?
How many times now has this been pointed out to recent cabinet’s ministers:
>“Many of the attacks by the executive on the judiciary step outside what is constitutionally proper or helpful. Their tone and content often suggests that ministers know better than judges how to determine complex issues of law. This is transparently not the case,”
OK but who, what, where, when on any action as a result?
>Alexander Horne (@AlexanderHorne1) [Jun 8, 2022](https://nitter.net/AlexanderHorne1/status/1534427277269803008)
>
>Pleased to have contributed to this inquiry by the APPG on Democracy and the Constitution. I entirely agree with their conclusions on the role of the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor.
>
>>>Guardian: [Judicial independence tainted by ministers, Commons inquiry finds](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/08/judicial-independence-tainted-by-ministers-commons-inquiry-finds?CMP=share_btn_tw)
>>>
>>>Supreme court taking positions more palatable to government as top MPs ‘attack’ judges, notes cross-party report
>
>-
>
>The full report from the APPG is available at:
>
>>>8 June 2022: [An Inquiry into the impact of the actions and rhetoric of the Executive since 2016 on the constitutional role of the Judiciary – pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6033d6547502c200670fd98c/t/629f8aec7baaef6dc1bcb8d5/1654622957222/SOPI+Report+FINAL.pdf)
I didn’t think the UK actually had a constitution. What does it mean when people say this ‘threatens the constitution’? Are they just speaking figuratively?? I’ve always been perplexed by this.
Tories scumbags ‘ improper’ attacks on judges threaten the constitution, parliamentary inquiry concludes,
*fixed