It seems hypocritical for a Parliament to make a law that requires the PM to do something that the PM doesn’t want to do, while refusing to have a “no confidence” vote. I’d guess the UK Supreme Court would rule that Parliament needs to vote him out, rather than “impeach” him, but it’s all clearly Brexit games.

Most UK voters understand that if there’s now a delay to Jan., no-deal Brexit will loom in Jan., since the EU is not going to offer any acceptable deal.

There is no way the EU is going to let this happen but Boris May find a way.
Exciting reading.

The only way out is for Johnson to do a Br’er Boris trick — don’t, whatever you do, throw me in that thicket over there. The trick is to force Parliament into voting for an election. There is just one way that I can see this being engineered.
…
Make sure that the Queen’s Speech contains one or more proposals that a sufficient number of people will vote against. Perhaps this: that the government is ready to leave the EU on Oct. 31 without a deal. We already know this won’t pass. We know that a majority of the house would vote against it. But that’s the Br’er trick: make them vote to topple the government, which will cause the election they don’t want. Or, of course, if they’re “frit” (a Maggie Thatcher word for frightened) to do that, then they can just vote to say that the government can indeed leave.
…
I don’t know whether this is what will happen, of course. Johnson is more clever than I am. But it’s the only way I can see of actually getting something done. The current Parliament simply won’t agree to do anything about Brexit. They’ll vote against any specific deal or no deal, but not in favor of any actual alternative. Therefore, we need a new Parliament, and the only way to get that is to force them into voting for an election.

We can hope, eh?

John Ratcliffe predicts that disgraced leaking liar Andrew McCabe will be indicted.

I think the DOJ has realized it cannot once again whitewash all the criminal behavior of its Democrat favorites, or they’ll never get a conviction in a courtroom again. One or more people will have to be indicted for their crimes.

(at the bottom of this post)
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/383231.php

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/383237.php

I always say “The rules you make for us, you make for yourself as well.”

There’s a corollary to that: The laws you claim your tribe-members can ignore and have immunity from, are laws that I can also ignore, and which I also have immunity from.

The Left really, really doesn’t like anyone but themselves to have a pen and a phone.

The root of the problem seems to be that too many in the Parliament care more about global issues than the concerns of their own people and homeland.

” Since the UK doesn’t have a constitution, the Court won’t be deciding whether that is constitutional …”

You’re going to take a hit on this remark.

It certainly has no written Constitution in the sense Dicey explained.

What it does have nowadays, is anyone’s guess. They even claim to have a meaningful bill of rights, though what that means in the face of continuing parliamentary supremacy, I cannot say.

As far as I am aware, Parliament may make any law it likes, and there is no higher law recognized as constraining its power to do so.