>Right, in other words you have no actual argument.
On the contrary, I have the only meaningful argument (about the actual thing that matters, whether it should be approved or not) -- and the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality (and even that depends on ..."secret documents" not admitted to the public to judge the case).
(Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time).
"the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality"
The courts can decide just on the legality.
"(Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time)."
But they shouldn't - their duty and extent of power is only in interpreting the law, not morality.
Now if you want to argue that the law should be different, or have some argument on how the arms sales could/should have been judge illegal, go ahead.
You could also argue that the UK government should apply pressure on the arms manufacturers to stop selling to Saudi Arabia, by e.g. denying them government contracts, applying closer scrutiny when it comes to export licences, threatening to change the law (as governments so often like to do when it comes to copyright enforcement), and that their failure to do so shows how much influence and corruption the arms manufacturers hold. Influence that could well be considered traitorous, and result in criminal prosecutions.
Legality is just a way to enforce what we consider wrong and right -- that is, morality.
What you describe (they only consider legality) is a bug not a feature -- and a bug that has been exploited many times, from scammers exploiting loopholes, to Jim Crow laws, to the Nuremberg trials.
Courts should (and under good judges do) strive to judge based on the spirit of the law (morality) not the letter (legality).
(Not that morality here doesn't mean some prudish values as the word is sometimes casually used -- I refer to the general concept of what's moral (justice) vs what's merely permitted (law)).
What you're proposing is that the judicial branch takes legislative responsibility from the legislative branch. The separation of these branches is not an accident.
And courts typically do consider the spirit of the law. But they must consider the spirit of the existing law, not the law you might wish exists.
On the contrary, I have the only meaningful argument (about the actual thing that matters, whether it should be approved or not) -- and the counter-argument put forward is just about the legality (and even that depends on ..."secret documents" not admitted to the public to judge the case).
(Not to mention that courts make moral judgements all the time).
reply