https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
[...]Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
She added that it was important to emphasise the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU, but about the decision to suspend Parliament.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:00PM (51 children)
The Supreme Court was created by Tony Blair as one part of a set of constitutional reforms to make ascendancy to the EU possible without a referendum. They have no constitutional power to nullify prorogation, and the ruling was that Boris Johnson lied to the Queen. We haven't been told how he lied or what evidence was presented to the court to support such a claim. On the contrary, Boris Johnson has the unwavering confidence of the house who refuse support his motions for a general election or call a vote of no confidence. The Supreme Court may as well have found Parliament in contempt of itself, as alluded to by Geoffrey Cox earlier today. [youtube.com]
The Government has graciously accepted the ruling, as 11 Supreme Court Justices should gratefully accept guilt for felony treason in overruling the head of state.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:11PM (14 children)
With treason, the question is whether you get away with it or not. Isn't history filled with edicts, commands, and authority that was openly flouted? Maybe I'll go watch that movie again. 300, in which Leonidas tells a (self appointed) demigod to come and TAKE his weapons away from him.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:22PM (13 children)
Can't remember who, but I believe there was a president who made a similar challenge to a supreme court ruling. Something to the effect of, *let them come and enforce it*
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:25PM (9 children)
There was this one guy once . . .
"Here i stand with my bayonet, there you stand with your laws. We'll see which prevails" A. Hitler
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EJ on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:36PM (5 children)
He wasn't wrong. He was just an asshole.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:03PM (4 children)
I think he was wrong.
Societies, even tribes, create laws for a reason. Since recorded history.
Just having a weapon doesn't make one right.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 3, Touché) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:20PM (1 child)
When you have a weapon, you don't have to be right. Yet, you still need them if you want to enforce the law
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Wednesday September 25 2019, @08:05PM
I think that has been said simply as "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." [wikipedia.org]
Politics makes for strange bedfellows sometimes.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:44AM (1 child)
Assuming God exists and created the entire universe, go try telling Him He's not right.
Power makes one "right" because they get to define what "right" means.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:55PM
See the book of Job in the Bible.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:59PM (2 children)
Considering he took poison and put a hole in his head to avoid standing before a court of "law", I think we know what prevailed.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 25 2019, @08:57PM (1 child)
Law? If ever there was a better example of rule of man over rule of law than war crimes trials, I have not seen it. That's not to say he didn't deserve to be kept alive until he died of old age and used to devise ever more painful methods of torture but there is nothing remotely law-like in the trials the Germans received after WWII except cosmetically.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:48AM
Scared, Buzzard? Like most US vets? The Nuremberg Tribunals were constituted against the objection of the lawless Brits, who just wanted to take all the Krauts out behind the shed, and shoot them, something they later did in Africa, a lot. No, it was the Americans, and other civilized nations, that insisted we have trials, with, you know, evidence and stuff on record, to establish a precedence in International Law. One Supreme Court Justice from the United States even took a sabbatical to serve on the tribunal, Robert H. Jackson [wikipedia.org], to do what real lawyers do, stand up for the rule of law.
Now, under the Rogue and Illegal Bush Administration, with its policy of aggressive wars of discretion, the United States sought to form side-agreements with as many nations as it could to release its own war criminals from the jurisdiction of the logical outcome of the Nueremberg Tribunals, the International Criminal Court [icc-cpi.int], established by the Rome Statute of 1998. Of course, only a rouge nation, intent upon using force in international relations, contrary to The UN Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4: [wikipedia.org]
Yes, America is a lawless nation as well. They seem to have learned it from the Brits. And now the Brits are seeking to be lawless even against their own laws, as the pathetic Donald is as well.
Real Americans stand for the rule of laws, not men. They reject oaths of loyalty to persons, and instead swear to defend the law. Which side are you on, Buzzard? And, remember, "War crimes: no statue of limitations, universal jurisdiction." Watch your back. And your front. And both sides.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:18PM (2 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-cherokees-vs-andrew-jackson-277394/
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:53AM (1 child)
Worst president ever! Until Bush. And then still worse president ever, until Trump. Trump trumps all the worst presidents ever! He is like the greatest worst president! A category five worst precedent, even though I have never heard of a category five, and the couple of times I did, well, just having a nice conversation with a world leader, you gonna impeach over that? Joe Biden shot first! (Jackson was known for the same tactic that Han Solo pulled. Tenneesseanians, can't trust 'em.)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:10AM
Nah. Can't agree with you there. Since Reagan, perhaps. "
Trump is hlarious.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:24PM (7 children)
It is amazing how anytime someone doesn't get what they want they immediately call for the government to become a dictatorship.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:27PM
What is more amazing / frightening is when their supporters get behind the idea of dictatorship.
Except they wouldn't seem to like it so much if the other major opposing party were in power.
Maybe because people cannot see that other groups have their own concerns about policy which are important to them.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @03:52PM (2 children)
Yes, refusing to vote in favour of an election or calling for a vote of no-confidence, challenging the constitutional right of the Prime Minister to request the monarch prorogues Parliament based on Kafkaesque inference of motives that lead to new constitutional law and unelectable parties [twitter.com] conspiring to form a "Government of National Unity" with the intent to reverse a democratic referendum. And the shitstains do all this while screaming about a "fascist coup", about how they're "protecting democracy" and accusing the Prime Minister of "frustrating democracy".
What outcomes do you expect if Parliament keeps voting down Boris Johnson's General Election motions, preventing the public removing the democracy hijacking remain contingent from Parliament?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:23PM (1 child)
Problem is, the "democracy hijacking remain contingent" were democratically elected in 2017 - some (Lib Dems) on the basis of a second referendum. some (Labour) on the basis of a deal that "retained the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union" and the Conservatives on "the best possible deal for Britain as we leave the EU" (go look up the manifestos - they're all online). There certainly wasn't a mandate for remain (how could there be - it wasn't even on offer) but there sure as hell wasn't a mandate for crashing out with no deal by default while parliament was prorogued (or dissolved in order to have a GE).
Johnson knew the parliamentary arithmetic in July when he took office. May knew the parliamentary arithmetic last winter. If either of them had given a flying fuck about democracy they could have called a general election or a second referendum - with a clear choice between remain, the May deal set out in black and white, and no deal - back then.
Now, with 5 weeks to go, a General Election would just enable Boris' Plan A of getting parliament out of the way for the 31st. Boris has single-handedly (well, with a bit of help from Cummings) created the current situation - the "dead" parliament, the supreme court ruling, the Benn act, his lost majority - by deciding to go to war with parliament... and now he wants a GE (and a handy stint as unaccountable acting PM while the 31st Oct comes and goes)?
Thing is, this wonderful democracy that we're supposed to "take back control" to is a Parliamentary Democrcacy where laws are debated, amended and re-debated and passed or rejected by elected, accountable representatives who have to face re-election every 5 years max. - not a twitterocracy where major, irrevocable decisions are made by a single, winner-takes all referendum with a simple-to-the-point-of-meaningless question that an unknown proportion of voters just treat as an opportunity for a protest vote against the current government - and which, once held, for some reason can't be repeated even after 3 years of debate, even after the electorate has changed, even when there are now 3 very clear, detailed options on the table.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:53PM
No deal is better than a bad deal - page 36 of the 2017 Conservative Manifesto. Parliament already rejected the Withdrawal Agreement three times.
Yes, they intended to rig it and split the Leave vote until toxic Tony proposed the same thing and ruined it for the duplicitous anti-democratic turds.
Parliament has had 3 years, they triggered article 50 and the extension as well as rejecting the WA on multiple occasions. As the law stands, we exit the EU on Oct 31st. What do Parliament think they're achieving by denying Boris and the electorate a democratic election? If this goes on, we'll have to ask the EU to kick us out for failure to comply with the Copenhagen Criteria [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:02PM (2 children)
Don't look at me. I generally call for it to be neutered to where it can't be that specific flavor of asshole anymore.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:21PM (1 child)
Anarchy doesn't scale well, and even in small groups it tends to collapse into autocracy under stress.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 25 2019, @08:59PM
Anarchy doesn't work with more than one person for any serious amount of time. That doesn't mean paring away unnecessary authority every chance you get is a bad idea though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:20PM (2 children)
...as the leader of a majority government, and with the support of the elected parliament. Sovereign states are allowed to set up supreme courts if they want.
No, the ruling was that the PM wasn't legally entitled to shut down parliament for more than the usual 4-6 days without good reason, and that the government hadn't supplied any good reason. It was down to the PM to account for his reasons for prorogation, but all the government came up with is a bunch of dubiously-comparable "two wrongs make a right" examples of extended prorogations from ancient history (...in which the reasons for prorogation seemed to have been made quite clear...)
The "advice to the Queen" stuff is just UK constitutional doubletalk for "the PM's decision" - the Queen is pretty much obliged to rubber-stamp whatever order the PM presents to her. Anyway, advising someone to do something unlawful is what it is - it isn't necessarily lying.
Of course, if the PM's intent for prorogation really was just to prepare for the Queen's speech and a new session, and absolutely nothing to do with forcing a no-deal Brexit past (the democratically elected) Parliament (p.s. want to buy Tower Bridge?), then all the Supreme Court has done is to adjudicate on a bit of tedious parliamentary timetabling minutiae - so what is everybody getting so excited about? You'd think the justices had unilaterally decided to revoke Article 50!
Yeah, he got that wrong, too - you're meant to plead for them not to throw you into the briar patch, then shout "Ha ha!" when they do. Calling an election means that parliament would be dissolved immediately, winning a vote of no confidence starts a 14-day clock to the potential dissolution of parliament. All of which leaves the departing PM free to move back the election and get those pesky democratically elected MPs out of the way for the run up to October 31st and payday for the casino bankers and offshore tax haveneers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:21PM
They didn't know what they were voting for [eurasiafuture.com]
There is nothing in constitutional law or precedent to support that ruling and it's why the High Court ruled that the case was not justiciable. The Supreme Court created new law [spectator.co.uk] and based their ruling on the idea that Boris had lied to the Queen because no evidence was presented to support the Government's argument that prorogation merely precedes a new legislative agenda. In lieu of evidence, the Justices have utilised their incredible mind-reading skills to deem this prorogation illegal, it didn't happen despite the fact it did.
Parliament are frustrating the democratic process by refusing to vote for a General Election and further compromising the Government's negotiating position because elected representatives are misrepresenting their constituents 406 Leave and 242 Remain [fullfact.org] because candidates lied about their intent. I'd say we now have precedent for the supreme court to rule that the election of these liars was unlawful, it's of course a Kafkaesque procedure where the justices decide what the accused was thinking without any evidence.
Say the people who would put Convict Legarde [theguardian.com] in charge of their Central Bank?
(Score: 2) by jb on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:45AM
The Queen still does hold some (albeit extremely limited) reserve power, but like any well-designed reserve powers, they almost never get used.
For example, I seem to recall reading that HM Queen Victoria refused to accept the resignation of a sitting PM (Lord Melbourne) on at least one occasion. Admittedly that was over a century ago, but that's still relatively recent in the scale of the British constitutional monarchy.
On the other hand, I very much doubt any reigning monarch would even consider going disregarding a PM's advice on proroguing parliament again. From memory, the last to do so was King Charles I (although in that case it was the King who prorogued parliament---for 11 years!) ... and his doing so set in motion a chain of events which culminated in his beheading 20 years later.
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:23PM (13 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:50PM
That is no way to talk about remain voters and anyone who has a problem with universal suffrage should campaign for it to be put to the people; in a referendum!
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:21PM (10 children)
> mostly ill-informed populace.
The "voters didn't understand" rhetoric is quite sad and insulting. I think they knew exactly the trade-off; parliamentary democracy vs economic prosperity. It is a reasonable trade-off to make.
Having said that, the quite slim "leave" majority was not sufficient to make such a hard break with EU; rather the powers that be should loosen ties and do another referendum in 10 years (7 years now) time.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:49PM (9 children)
Well, the ones currently supporting Boris and protesting about the Supreme Court decision seem a bit shaky on the whole "parliamentary democracy" thing...
To be fair, when I was in school, "how the our country is governed" did not remotely feature on the curriculum (multiple 'projects' on the Romans and Vikings were apparently more important) - so I'd be reluctant to call anybody "stupid" for knowing squat about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:34PM (4 children)
By constituency: 406 Leave, 242 Remain [fullfact.org]
Failure of a majority vote in favour of a motion of no confidence or a General Election means that Parliament fully supports the Government. This is how our "parliamentary democracy" works, how can Parliamentarians take the Government to court while signaling their full confidence in said government? I think it's you that needs the refresher course.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday September 25 2019, @08:57PM (2 children)
Completely irrelevant - That was a referendum. It wasn't counted by constituencies. Parliamentary democracy is not a single-issue A/B referendum counted by consituency.
(a) there hasn't been a vote of no confidence in the government since January, against Theresa May, when the government still had a working majority, so that's irrelevant.
(b) a motion for a general election under the Fixed Term Parliament act is not a vote of confidence in the government - it is a vote on (duh!) whether to hod a general election. Since it was the government who proposed the last two such motions, describing its defeat as parliament "signaling their full confidence in said government" is an interesting bit of logic...
Also, the rationale for blocking a GE and being wary of a no confidence vote in the current situation has been quite clearly explained by the opposition: if a GE is called now, parliament is dissolved immediately leaving Boris as acting PM with the executive power to change the election date and keep parliament shut until after Oct 31st after which its 'no deal' by default. That would be Boris who was just found to have unlawfully prorogued parliament for (and don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining) the same purpose. Boris who keeps saying that we'll leave on the 31st no mater what, despite an act of parliament saying yes, it does matter what.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)
If Parliament is a representative democracy, who is it representing? Opposition parties can remove the sitting Government by voting for a General Election.
Parliament activated Article 50 which was extended until October 31st and that is the date when we exit the EU. Why would the EU agree to extend the period under the surrender act when they know remain MPs will not be returned to Parliament?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:17PM
MPs are representatives of their electorate, rather than delegates.
Delegates are told by their electorate how to vote on a particular issue, and then they go off and do so. Think of the US Electoral College, or of trade union conventions.
Representatives are given the time and/or expertise to learn about the important issues of the day, and take decisions that will be in the best interest of the individuals that elected them.
I think you overestimate the ability of the EU's election-poll crystal ball if you think they can predict what will come out of a general election here anytime soon!
They don't have to rely on the election of a lot of "remain MPs" (which I take to mean MPs who wish to see Article 50 revoked). The election of enough "leave MPs" that will ratify a withdrawal agreement would also do. I'm sure the EU would prefer an orderly withdrawal to a no-deal break, and hope an election could change the Parliamentary arithmetic so that a party (or coalition of parties) would be in a position to ratify a withdrawal agreement.
Remember that other than the extreme options of leaving with no deal or revoking and remaining a full member, every other option has to go through the first stage of a withdrawal agreement first.
Another reason is domestic politics: if no withdrawal agreement is ratified, and there is disruption and job losses in France, the Netherlands, Ireland, etc., I'm sure their leaders would much prefer to be able to say to their disgruntled electorate "it's not our fault; we didn't kick them out".
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:07AM
Parliament is a compromise because you can't poll everyone on every issue - they chose someone who mostly represents their wishes to represent them - and, more to the point, someone who they trust to be better versed in the issues under question and with a broader view of the consequences of any votes. Of course, the person that represents the winners often stands for the opposite of what the majority of his constituents actually want - that's a huge rounding error. Direct representative democracy is a terrible approximation to democracy because of this. And that's why trying to copy its errors when trying to evaluate the result of a plebiscite is stupid.
The issue you raise could have been a good one had you not clouded it with the invalid conclusion - we definitely needed to look into our relationship with the EU, but there's a difference between going to marriage guidance councelling, and going out back to blow your brains out.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 25 2019, @07:22PM (1 child)
> "stupid"
If I came across as calling anyone stupid I apologise. "Sad and insulting" was a bit too strong, I should not have been so aggressive.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:15AM
I'm the kind of pompous ass who thinks that there is merit in a voting licence, democracy is wasted on people who don't understand the consequences of what they ask for, and can be downright dangerous. We have one for driving, why not have one for voting too? So you weren't too strong, you were accurate, I am quite openly insulting. And I appreciate that you can express your opinion of my statements as firmly as I am willing to make my own statements. That way we can get direct to the matters at hand without trying to couch them in shaded terms that don't really say what we believe.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @09:58PM (1 child)
How on Earth did you miss out on Henry VIII??? Had that for about 3 years! Yep, years of Vikings, Romans, Henry VIII and about a term of Normans, the Black Death and the Fire Of London.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:58AM
"If you pay the Danegeld, you'll never be able to Brexit."
The British, it seems, are not too bright. Some of them are actually descendants of Danes! And worse.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:49PM
It's just as easy to argue that the populace in the 60s and 70s were ill-informed when they chose to enter/form the EU. After all, they hadn't been in the EU yet, so how could they know what it would actually be like?
The populace of today knows precisely what being in the EU is like; they are perfectly well-informed about that. They chose to leave.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 25 2019, @10:35PM (10 children)
Who the hell modded that nonsense Interesting?
There is at least one falsehood on every line. The rest is just ill-informed rubbish.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @11:38PM (9 children)
Someone aware of the facts. [theguardian.com] I don't expect you bother with them much?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:35AM (5 children)
There is one fact in that whole spiel. The rest is just ill-informed nonsense. Or made up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @11:44AM (4 children)
Lord Chief Justice Burnett (the most senior judge in the UK), Master of the Rolls Etherton and President of the Queen’s Bench Division Dame Sharp already ruled the case non-justiciable in the High Court and no court in any English Common Law jurisdiction has ever created new constitutional statute before. On what planet does a Crown Court have constitutional power to overrule the Crown and rule prorogation unlawful? Geoffrey Cox and Boris Johnson have indeed hinted that the Supreme Courts wings are to be clipped and sovereign nations must by definition enforce treason laws (esp High Treason as repealed by Tony Blair).
I also called it correctly [twitter.com] when I stated that Johnson has the support of the dysfuntional house and should prorogue again. I suggest it is you who are ill-informed.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday September 27 2019, @12:30AM (3 children)
Lord Chief Justice Burnett issued a ruling which was the opposite of the ruling from a Scottish court, so the Supreme Court did what they are supposed to do, and made a definitive ruling. It was 11 - 0, so not even close.
If the PM had the support of the house we would not even have this conversation, because he would able to pass whatever bills he put up.
He does not have a majority, which is why he keeps losing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 29 2019, @09:47AM (2 children)
For the last time; The Supreme Court created new law that has no constitutional basis. [policyexchange.org.uk] As Starkey continually explains. [youtube.com]
Having the support of Parliament and a majority are not the same thing. Johnson would have an incomming majority if opposition parties had voted for a General Election, failure to do so is interpreted as a display of confidence.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday September 29 2019, @09:56PM (1 child)
You linked to an opinion piece from Policy Exchange? You're not arguing in good faith if you think Policy Exchange are anything other than partisan on that issue.
Also, 11 Supreme Court justices disagree. The ruling was 11-0. No dissent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 30 2019, @10:00AM
I linked to a paper by John Finnis, if you knew who he was you'd not dismiss it as an "opinion piece". The Supreme Court ruling is an opinion piece, one of their last. [twitter.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:22AM (2 children)
You didn't think that through, did you.
The truth of "X did Y so that Z" doesn't depend only on the truth of "X did Y", it also needs the "so that Z" to hold. If it doesn't, the whole statement is false, and that was being called out.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @11:50AM (1 child)
Then why are Democrats in the US still going after Brett Kavanaugh? FatPhils formulation would benefit from expansion beyond trivial cartesian space.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @10:53AM
Because he's a serial raper, who lied to Congress, and thus unfit to serve? Just a guess.