In the wake of Miller (No 2), it has been contended in the media that prorogation ‘has always been treated as a “proceeding in Parliament”’ and hence protected from judicial review by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. The allegation is that in Miller (No 2), the Supreme Court overturned over 300 years of jurisprudence, including its own 2014 decision that ‘the Crown’s actions in Parliament were sacrosanct and “cannot be questioned”’. Political motivations have been attributed to the Court for this abrupt departure from its own jurisprudence.
Is this actually the case? A dispassionate analysis shows that the Court has taken an approach consistent with its previous jurisprudence on article 9 of the Bill of Rights and has not altered its course for political or any other reasons. This post surveys some of the relevant evidence.
The purpose of article 9
Article 9 of the Bill…
View original post 1,794 more words
From the Manhattan Institute:
If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig
Democrats dream of powering society entirely with wind and solar farms combined with massive batteries. Realizing this dream would require the biggest expansion in mining the world has seen and would produce huge quantities of waste.
“Renewable energy” is a misnomer. Wind and solar machines and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. And they wear out. Old equipment must be decommissioned, generating millions of tons of waste. The International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that solar goals for 2050 consistent with the Paris Accords will result in old-panel disposal constituting more than double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste. Consider some other sobering numbers: …
When electricity comes from wind or solar machines, every unit of energy produced, or mile traveled, requires far more materials and land than fossil fuels. That physical reality is literally visible:…
View original post 149 more words