Matt Walsh: Stop pretending you’re killing Charlie Gard ‘for his own benefit,’ you monsters

[JonC]

Matt, could you provide any input on UK courts, in regards to appointment/election and levels of jurisdiction?

All that I know now comes from encountering "and so and so studied law at the Inns of Court in such and such year" when reading biographical info.

All I know is that Dr. Who is the President of the World.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt, could you provide any input on UK courts, in regards to appointment/election and levels of jurisdiction?

All that I know now comes from encountering "and so and so studied law at the Inns of Court in such and such year" when reading biographical info.

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

 

[Rob_BW]

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

Thank you. I looked through wikipedia a bit, seems like even that process has been in flux recently.

 

[JonC]

Very interesting tangent. Looks like the creation of the Supreme Court (the highest appeals court) was an act of Parliament (the supreme legislative body in the UK) whose head is the Crown. The judges of tbe Supreme court are appointed by the Queen.

 

[Rob_BW]

Very interesting tangent. Looks like the creation of the Supreme Court (the highest appeals court) was an act of Parliament (the supreme legislative body in the UK) whose head is the Crown. The judges of tbe Supreme court are appointed by the Queen.

Who replaced the Law Lords. Not sure how they're related to the Time Lords...

 

[Revmitchell]

Pro-life Congressmen gave Charlie Gard new hope this week when they granted the British infant and his parents permanent residence in the United States.

U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a pro-life Republican from Nebraska, announced the news Tuesday on Twitter.

“We just passed amendment that grants permanent resident status to #CharlieGard and family so Charlie can get the medical treatment he needs,” Fortenberry wrote.

Pro-life Congressman Kevin Yoder, a Republican from Kansas, added:

View image on Twitter

Follow
Rep. Kevin Yoder

✔@RepKevinYoder
.@HouseAppropsGOP voted today to give lawful permanent residence to #CharlieGard so he can come to the US for world class medical care

4:10 PM - 18 Jul 2017

Charlie’s parents and his hospital are involved in an on-going legal battle over his medical care. The 11-month-old British infant suffers from a mitochondrial disease and brain damage.

Charlie Gard and His Parents Given U.S. Citizenship to Fly Him to America for Treatment | LifeNews.com

 

[Revmitchell]

...The hospital maintains that Charlie’s case is hopeless because he does not have a chance of any “quality of life,” according to the Birmingham Mail....

...The main argument offered by the hospital to countermand parental authority was to protect Charlie’s “best interests.” However, attorneys for Charlie’s parents argued that the hospital was basically holding Charlie hostage, violating several articles under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the rights to life, liberty and family privacy.

Hospital Doctors Defend Refusing Experimental Treatment for Charlie Gard: “He Has No Quality of Life” | LifeNews.com

 

[Matt Black]

Very interesting tangent. Looks like the creation of the Supreme Court (the highest appeals court) was an act of Parliament (the supreme legislative body in the UK) whose head is the Crown. The judges of tbe Supreme court are appointed by the Queen.

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 sit in the upper house of the legislature and thus wear two hats ( or wigs!)...at least that was the intention. The appointment by the Queen thing is a bit of a theoretical anachronism - bit like the Prime Minster is officially appointed by her

 

[Rob_BW]

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 sit in the upper house of the legislature and thus wear two hats ( or wigs!)...at least that was the intention. The appointment by the Queen thing is a bit of a theoretical anachronism - bit like the Prime Minster is officially appointed by her

I always saw the Law Lords and Lords Spiritual seats in the House of Lords as an interesting difference.

Being a history major, I was always interested in the Wars of the Roses and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

 

[JonC]

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 sit in the upper house of the legislature and thus wear two hats ( or wigs!)...at least that was the intention. The appointment by the Queen thing is a bit of a theoretical anachronism - bit like the Prime Minster is officially appointed by her

How are the judges chosen?

 

[Matt Black]

By the Judicial Appointments Commission

 

[Rob_BW]

By the Judicial Appointments Commission

And that's all the way down to the County Court judges?

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[JonC]

By the Judicial Appointments Commission

Thank. Your reply pointed me towards this:

Selection process | Judicial Appointments Commission

I still believe, based on the role the courts play, that the courts are what would be considered (here in the US) a part of the government. But I also get the difference between the selection process by the Judicial Appointments Commission and our President. In fact, I like your process of selection (insofar as I have thus far understood) better.

In terms of the Supreme Court, how long do judges occupy that position?

(And yes, I know we are off topic.....but it is helpful to understand a system before complaining about it )

 

[rsr]

At the risk of being irrelevant and off topic, I would point out to those on this side of the Pond that the UK is governed by an "unwritten constitution," a body of traditions rather than codified regulations (although I believe this is not as true today as it was decades ago). The winner of the most seats in a parliamentary election goes to the queen to announce formation of a government. The queen really has no choice of whether to agree or not, but that's understood, not as a matter of law.

The Parliament is the supreme authority; there are no co-equal branches (although Matt relates that the judicial system is more independent than previously). The executive is a function of the Parliament, not a separate branch. But the bottom line is that what Parliament says is, essentially, the law.

An old example is the Asquith government's threat to remove the House of Lords' veto power or, in the alternative, flood the House of Lords with Liberal members should the Lords decline to approve the Commons' budget. He won, essentially altering the British constitution.

As to the original question: It is a crushing responsibility to decide whether someone's life should be prolonged when there is little hope of recovery. Been there, done that. Knowing what I know now, I would have argued against some of the treatments that were offered. But I can never escape the decisions I made.

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[church mouse guy]

...The hospital maintains that Charlie’s case is hopeless because he does not have a chance of any “quality of life,” according to the Birmingham Mail....

...The main argument offered by the hospital to countermand parental authority was to protect Charlie’s “best interests.” However, attorneys for Charlie’s parents argued that the hospital was basically holding Charlie hostage, violating several articles under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the rights to life, liberty and family privacy.

Hospital Doctors Defend Refusing Experimental Treatment for Charlie Gard: “He Has No Quality of Life” | LifeNews.com

The Brits are hopelessly behind on this issue medically. The new treatment is good and proper. What is not proper is for a British hospital to refuse to discharge a patient to a respectable treatment just because the British medical community is ignorant of such a treatment. I realize that the British are confused but it is time for them to get out of the way for all of the good that they have done. The British are in the grip of a typical inept government and they have no emergency cord to pull in the name of liberty because they esteem government more than liberty.

 

[Matt Black]

Pure opinion with no substantiation: a bare assertion and therefore without validity. I will concede that we have an inept lame duck Conservative Prime Minister and government who have starved the health service of essential funding but that doesn't mean our doctors are more dumb than yours: the senior ones all trained before the tap was turned off. You may think that your medics are better but so far all that has been produced is speculation that is non-independently peer-reviewed and simply won't stand and hasn't stood up to legal and medical scrutiny. And that's BEFORE you work out how to move Charlie to the next street let alone another continent without inflicting pain and probably fatal suffering on him.. .

 

[Matt Black]

This however: US ranked worst healthcare system, while the NHS is the best

 

[Revmitchell]

This however: US ranked worst healthcare system, while the NHS is the best

From your article:

"“The ACA has helped make major strides in coverage and access to care in the US, particularly for lower-income Americans,” says Benjamin Sommers of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts."

Blatantly false.