The recent Brexit Parliamentary prorogation ruling from Britain's Supreme Court illustrated how judicial overreach can have real practical implications at the highest strategic levels. In admitting that 'this was a once-off case' Justice Hale virtually admitted that the law was being selectively interpreted to arrive at a pre-ordained verdict. The almost contemptuous dismissal of the prior Divisional Court judgement makes you wonder how two sets of senior judges could arrive at diametrically opposite verdicts. And while the judgement takes pains to assure that it was not passing judgement of Boris' motivations - which would be ultra vires (see how I'm getting into the swing of this legal thingy?) - they let the cat out of the bag later by admitting that he had 'no good reason' to prorogue Parliament. Blatant judicial overreach.
True to form Tony Bliar and New Labour had a major hand in these developments by establishing the British Supreme Court and by incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. As we know, so-called human rights and 'hate' legislation is framed in such vague and loose terms that its enactment ineluctably transferred power from Parliament to the Courts. And facilitates politically convenient verdicts. In doing so Bliar also set up a lucrative 'human rights' practice for his ghastly wife Cherie.
All of this has major ramifications. As Saul Alinsky, the Frankfurt School, Grampsci and even the Protocols Of Zion all recognised, regulatory capture is the key to power. We've seen the extent to which free speech has already been curtailed in Britain and it's only going to get worse. In an article in the The Spectator some time ago a would-be judge discovered that to be successful he'd not only have to commit to supporting 'diversity' but would have to demonstrate the practical measures he had already undertaken to support it. This is judicial capture, pure and simple. The scary thing is that any counter-measures undertaken by elected representatives can be deemed 'unconstitutional' by the courts and thus rendered void.
Either George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde accurately observed that all professions are conspiracies against the public. Yet any questioning of the courts is described as ‘undermining the rule of law’. The rule of lawyers would be more like it. Shakespeare had it right: 'First kill all the lawyers'. The Bard saw the dangers hundreds of years ago.