Politicians can't disagree with judges apparently

[bitchstewie]

This is interesting.

Top judge ‘deeply troubled’ by PMQs exchange on Gaza asylum case

It was in Parliament and is hardly "Enemies of the People" stuff.

Are politicians not supposed to ask questions of judgements or say where they disagree with a judgement even if they respect it?

[Countdown]

I think the Judge is wrong.

Parliament's job is to make the laws and, if there is a weakness/loophole, then it's Parliament's job to discuss whether the law needs amending.

It seems kind of ironic that the Judge is happy to comment on parliament but upset about parliament commenting on the Law.

[hidetheelephants]

Seems a bit pearl-clutching, especially as the jist of the response is that they're changing the law to stop repeats, which rather implies that the govt recognises that judges are independent. Legislators gonna legislate, as the kids might say.

[Vanden Saab]

It seems our top judge has made the mistake of thinking she is the law rather than merely being an interpreter of law made by government.

[768]

bhstewie said:

...and is hardly "Enemies of the People" stuff.

[Sporky]

bhstewie said:

Are politicians not supposed to ask questions of judgements or say where they disagree with a judgement even if they respect it?

I think the politicians aren't meant to misrepresented the case or the judgement.

[hidetheelephants]

Sporky said:

I think the politicians aren't meant to misrepresented the case or the judgement.

She doesn't like the use of the term loophole? Would she have preferred the PM to longwindedly say "I don't think this judgement reflects the intent of the legislators, so we're going to redraft the law"?

[Sporky]

hidetheelephants said:

She doesn't like the use of the term loophole? Would she have preferred the PM to longwindedly say "I don't think this judgement reflects the intent of the legislators, so we're going to redraft the law"?

As I recall, the judgement had nothing to do with the Ukrainian thing. No loophole existed or was used - it's in the article.

[Ridgemont]

Sporky said:

hidetheelephants said:

She doesn't like the use of the term loophole? Would she have preferred the PM to longwindedly say "I don't think this judgement reflects the intent of the legislators, so we're going to redraft the law"?

As I recall, the judgement had nothing to do with the Ukrainian thing. No loophole existed or was used - it's in the article.

Yes PMQs last week was a bit of a debacle.
The loophole was used to get them into the country in the first place. The right to remain was declined on those grounds.
On appeal the Judge decided they had a right to a family life under the ECHR.
So the decision was disgraceful however not for the reasons the PM and LOTO were banging on about.
But the idea of the Judges above parliamentary commentary and by appellate only seems to me a completely ludicrous proposition unless a constitutional lawyer wants to correct.