Search results

Hard cases don't make good law or ethical principles - look at the Charlie Gard case we are debating elsewhere. Because 'your stuff' (the rewards of your labour which you want to reap) don't arise in a vacuum: the roads you drive on to the place of your labour, the legal system and law...

I don't see how that can be an 'assumption' if one claims to be 'pro-life', unless that is also an 'assumption' here? Is it?

So, if your life is extinguished because you don't have access to healthcare, your right to life is infringed. All else reeks of hypocrisy.

I pay tax for that - a lot of tax; why pay twice for the same things? You don't buy a dog and then bark yourself... Then kindly answer it!

If you don't classify it as a right then I'm not sure how you can claim to be pro-life, since the right to healthcare is an essential adjunct to the right to life. Or does this 'right to life' expire at birth?

Er...no: healthcare benefits all citizens. I don't want to hire someone who is off sick every few weeks because of a treatable condition when they can't afford the treatment. Think of the billions lost to the economy because of sick days.

But, as you said, you have the right to bear arms and the government don't fund that: having a right doesn't necessarily mean the method of funding exercise of that right is set in stone.

Poor guy. Let's pray for him

There are no term limits to SC justices but they have to retire at either 70 or 75 depending on how they were appointed.

We do more with less arguably.

Yes, District Judges (theoretically I could apply to be one) are appointed technically by the Queen on the advice of the Lord Chancellor but in reality on the recommendation of the JAC

By the Judicial Appointments Commission

To answer Rob's question, the Law Lords in effect became the new Supreme Court (with a few tweaks) after the 2005 legislation. The idea was to make the judiciary more independent not so much of the government but of the legislature, so that the judges of the highest court in the land didn't also...

Time does not permit but judges are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission which is independent of the government

Ok, so we're arguing over definitions. For me, 'government' is 'The Ministry of Theresa May' or 'The Trump Administration'. The legal system is not part of that, is independent of and, where necessary, antagonistic to it.

I don't see it as stifling the debate at all; the debate as to funding can still be had

NO, I see it as a starting point in a civilised society. Having established this as a maxim, we can then have the debate about how that is to be funded.

No. 'Government' here is Theresa May and her ministers who have absolutely zero control over this case. Take a look here: Government of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

That's an answer to a different question. I was asking why Americans - clearly, since no-one seems to be advocating that you shouldn't pay taxes for them, whatever the Constitution does or doesn't say about them - pay taxes for those but not healthcare

Which is why we have political parties and elections so that the people can decide where that line is drawn. It's called democracy folks.