There is still legal argument, integrity, consistency and adherence to the rule of law to be found in the US justice system, but no longer at its apex.

I fear the US Supreme 'Court' will (sadly) prove itself to being no longer a court in any meaningful sense. It is these days best understood as just annother Chamber of Congress. A place where the logic of party loyalty, whips, public opinion and occasional rebelling best explain its decisions.

And honestly I don't give a fuck if it's popular or not. It's going to make a lot of kids' lives better. That's the point of government. Not an opinion poll.

Perhaps time for more systematic and frequent coalition governments? At least between those parties that are broadly committed to democratic liberal values, and to the exclusion of those who are not (ie Reform).

Trouble is, much of that is mobile wealth and much harder to tax effectively. 2/2

I think that's exactly right.

The ECtHR accepted that video chat and/or the technical possibility of family members joining the deported person abroad are sufficient to meet Art 8 requirements. There has also been a notable narrowing of Art 3 in recent cases but Mark is right, that gov proposes to go much further than that. 3/3

The ECtHR already limits protection from deportation/family reunification to immediate family members (primary caregivers and underage children only). Deporting individuals with criminal records is virtually always justified, unless insurmountable obstacles to continuing family life exist. 2/3

I share Mark's skepticism that courts would be so assertive, at least initially. But a common practice of legislating contrary to common law rights may well be a catalyst for a damaging constitutional showdown. The HRA and ECHR work well overall, critics should be careful what they wish for. /ends