TailWindHome
New Member
The court being clear and the court saying what you say they said may prove to be two different things
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The court being clear and the court saying what you say they said may prove to be two different things
TailWindHome
New Member
I note you say "should" and not "is"
monkers
Shaman
The crux of this matter is that the Supreme Court is only supreme within the judiciary. It is not intended to be supreme to parliament.
In any given case the Supreme Court is entitled to consider statutory interpretation alone. If the SC goes on to say this can only be what parliament had intended in passing a bill, then parliament is perfectly entitled to be given the opportunity to say ''actually, the previously established meaning was the meaning that was intended''.
The Supreme Court will be aware that if one of its judgments changes what has been understood by parliament to to be within statute, then parliament is entitled to say that the court has effectively 'legislated from the bench'.
What appears to be unravelling is the government messaging this without wishing to embarrass the Supreme Court with the contradiction.
As has been posted on this forum before, that reading down the judgment and comparing with the minutes of the drafting committee meetings behind the Equality Bill, show that the then Solicitor General Vera Baird (now Dame Vera Baird) replied to questions about the rights of a trans woman with a GRC to be under the ground of sex, using the phrase that the purpose of the GRC is to ''put that beyond doubt''. That is a matter of public record.
Further discussion may circle questions concerning where the Supreme Court should have considered that record. However as things stand, the considered opinion is that the Supreme Court was entitled to limit its consideration to statutory interpretation only.
In summary then I am saying that the Supreme Court was entitled to follow the process that it selected, but the question remains whether in so doing it did provide clarification of what parliament intended. People who say that the Supreme Court erred in its approach are entitled both to think so, and to say as much.
In the meantime one can only speculate on the reason for the delay that is frustrating people on either side of the argument. In my own case I will speculate that the government seems to now recognise that the Supreme Court ruling introduces uncertainties around how the Equality Act can function in relation to precedent and subsequent acts, namely the GRA and the SSMA, and also how it can function as a daughter to the HRA.
I will also speculate there is a further discomfort in that if the Supreme Court ruling does as a legal fact entitle non-legal bodies to exercise blanket bans as demanded by Sex Matters, then the legal principle commutes to other judgment made previously under the EqA and other acts arguably becomes interpretable across statute. I will also speculate that the government is content to let the matter rest while parliament is at rest and await the outcomes of the High Court judgment of GLP v EHRC which is predicted to be handed down some time in January.
PS; a note to my detractors, no form of AI was used to assist in the preparation or writing of my post.
In any given case the Supreme Court is entitled to consider statutory interpretation alone. If the SC goes on to say this can only be what parliament had intended in passing a bill, then parliament is perfectly entitled to be given the opportunity to say ''actually, the previously established meaning was the meaning that was intended''.
The Supreme Court will be aware that if one of its judgments changes what has been understood by parliament to to be within statute, then parliament is entitled to say that the court has effectively 'legislated from the bench'.
What appears to be unravelling is the government messaging this without wishing to embarrass the Supreme Court with the contradiction.
As has been posted on this forum before, that reading down the judgment and comparing with the minutes of the drafting committee meetings behind the Equality Bill, show that the then Solicitor General Vera Baird (now Dame Vera Baird) replied to questions about the rights of a trans woman with a GRC to be under the ground of sex, using the phrase that the purpose of the GRC is to ''put that beyond doubt''. That is a matter of public record.
Further discussion may circle questions concerning where the Supreme Court should have considered that record. However as things stand, the considered opinion is that the Supreme Court was entitled to limit its consideration to statutory interpretation only.
In summary then I am saying that the Supreme Court was entitled to follow the process that it selected, but the question remains whether in so doing it did provide clarification of what parliament intended. People who say that the Supreme Court erred in its approach are entitled both to think so, and to say as much.
In the meantime one can only speculate on the reason for the delay that is frustrating people on either side of the argument. In my own case I will speculate that the government seems to now recognise that the Supreme Court ruling introduces uncertainties around how the Equality Act can function in relation to precedent and subsequent acts, namely the GRA and the SSMA, and also how it can function as a daughter to the HRA.
I will also speculate there is a further discomfort in that if the Supreme Court ruling does as a legal fact entitle non-legal bodies to exercise blanket bans as demanded by Sex Matters, then the legal principle commutes to other judgment made previously under the EqA and other acts arguably becomes interpretable across statute. I will also speculate that the government is content to let the matter rest while parliament is at rest and await the outcomes of the High Court judgment of GLP v EHRC which is predicted to be handed down some time in January.
PS; a note to my detractors, no form of AI was used to assist in the preparation or writing of my post.
Last edited:
bobzmyunkle
Veteran
I would speculate the delay is because the government knows it's between a rock and a hard place. This is not a government that relishes difficult decisions.
monkers
Shaman
Fair.
