Supreme Courts Betray Law & the People

While the mainstream media and political elites sold their souls to the global elite decades ago, in both the UK and the USA the legal systems maintained their independence and probity. In both nations, the Supreme Court was still seen as the fount of justice and the guarantor of our ancient liberties and (especially in the USA) our constitutional rights. Not any more. 

Last week saw the once-independent pinnacle of the legal system sell its soul, the nation and the kitchen sink to the global technocracy started with the US Supreme Court summarily dismissing the most important application for redress against the blatant theft of the Presidential election. Despite a theoretical 'conservative majority', the Supreme Court sided with the coup criminals to obliterate even the pretence of a free and fair electoral system in the once-proud USA.

The SCOTUS decision means that the only choice President Trump and his majority of real American voters have is to declare martial law - and probably see the upper echelons of the military refuse to support it, citing the court verdict as evidence of the Biden/Harris coup's 'legitimacy'- to accept the biggest fraud in electoral history and submit to the Democrat revolution, or to hold a series of referenda on red state secession. Whichever option is taken, the SCOTUS refusal to defend the Constitution marks the effective end of the United States of America as a serious and unified nation.

The week ended with the Supreme Court in England making the same lurch away from justice and independence to become yet another tool of the liberal elite.

The Supreme Court decided to refuse to hear an appeal by English freedom activists relating to a Judicial Review into lockdown. A 'JR' is the long-standing way in which citizens are able to challenge and halt abuses of power by politicians and high-ranking civil servants.

The Supreme Court decision to refuse to hear the appeal means that unelected Judges have set a precedent which now makes it  impossible to challenge the Government’s use of the Public Health Act 1984 to trample over Civil Liberties and to emasculate Parliament in the process.

By not allowing the Appeal to go ahead, this puts a protective shield around Ministers and gives them a free run to lock up people in their homes using the Act, without having to worry any more that their actions in using the Act like this are illegal. In a court stance that will be all too familiar with Americans right now, 1,200 pages of evidence submitted with the application have simply been ignored.This is a chilling development which should not be underestimated.

The Government's ruthless use of the 1984 Act is an effective destruction of democratic process on behalf of the public around the lockdowns we have suffered and any that may happen again in the future. Although lately there has been some pushback from MPs, the decision of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal gives the Government more power than it should rightfully have.

It threatens even to rip up the rights protected by the Magna Carta - the basic premise of you being free unless it is specifically unlawful has now effectively been changed, meaning that you now have to have the Govt’s permission to do literally anything. This goes against 800+ years of legal principle.

By criticising the activists for brnging a ‘Rolling Judicial Review’ case, it means that when a Government in future uses these emergency powers, provided that they change the regulations every time they are challenged, they can keep avoiding the very mechanism – Judicial Review – that is there to provide a vital check and balance under the UK's unwritten constitution. It is ironic that in July of this year, the Government launched a wide ranging review into the scope of judicial review chaired by Lord Faulks QC which has yet to publish its recommendations. 

Equally disturbing is how the lockdown Judicial Review cases have found a lack of willingness from the Courts to challenge Government; Judges have said all along “It isn’t the place of the Court to get involved in politics”. They didn’t make that claim when Remainers brought cases designed to stop Brexit. Remainer Gina Miller twice defeated the Government in the Supreme Court, once over the right of MPs in triggering Article 50 and then again over the Prorogation of Parliament – arguably far less significant to the nation than the greatest economic contraction in peacetime history and the unprecedented restriction of rights, including access to healthcare – that we have seen as a result of Government measures.

From the first directions order made in the Judicial Review claim, it was clear that the unelected judges were entirely dismissive of the notion that we should be able to protect rights in the midst of a Pandemic, or that the Government’s actions could in any way be disproportionate or illegal in terms of the real situation being faced.

All in all, a bad week indeed for freedom and for normal people. And an even worse week for those who have argued that there is a comfortable political way back to the old 'normal. The truth is that bus left some time ago, these two decisions are simply a big notice saying that all such services have been discontinued.

Keep up to date!

Optional email code

Sign up to our newsletter today!

Send me email updates