Joshua Rozenberg's opinion counts for naught and he wins another booby prize
Joshua Rozenberg deserves credit for correctly predicting that Jonathan Sumption QC would become a Supreme Court judge.
However, Joshua Rozenberg only got the booby prize for this piece of writing, and I am only giving him another booby prize for the following. Once again he is being economical with the truth.
Ministers will also have welcomed his acknowledgment of the truism that any decision they might take not to implement a ruling from by the European Court of Human Rights - on prisoners' voters, for example- cannot be overturned by the domestic courts.
Joshua Rozenberg can be rightly accused of claiming that the truism stated above is a fact when it is not the case. For example, "The word may be used to disguise the fact that a proposition is really just an opinion, especially in rhetoric".
So, Ministers express a rhetorical opinion and Joshua Rozenberg merely expresses his opinion as a legal commentator that the Ministers are correct. Hirst v UK (No2) is the leading case on prisoners' votes, and it is the European Court of Human Rights opinion which counts and not that of Ministers in the UK.
UPDATE:
Dear Joshua
Responding to a question with a question does not answer the original question!
Where does it say in our constitution that the supreme court cannot strike down legislation? Where does it say in Israel's similarly unwritten constitution that its supreme court can?
Report card reads Must try harder!
Kind regards
John
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment