Who is right?

So the Supreme Court is the last word I interpreting the law?  Well, certainly some people think otherwise. 

Indeed, such was the partisan nature and bizarreness of the judgement to some they think its needs to re visited.  Even though it is unlikely that it will be.   One such critic of the judgement is Professor John Finnis.  “The Judgement was wholly unjustified by law” and “should be recognised as a historic mistake, not a victory for fundamental principle”.   Very strong views.  But when you read his paper on the Policy Exchange, you can begin to see his views make sense.        

The Professor argues, not unreasonably, that the Judgement itself undercuts the genuine sovereignty of Parliament by evading a statutory prohibition – Article. 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 – on judicial questioning of proceedings in Parliament.  He demonstrates that the Judgement was wholly unjustified by law and “it wrongly transfers the conventions about prorogation into the domain of justiciable law”.  His conclusion is that the Supreme Court Judgement is an “inept foray into high politics and should be recognised as a historic mistake, not a victory for fundamental principle”.      

So why did the Supreme Court take such a different understanding as to what its role was?  Well, unfortunately given the comments made by at least one of the judges who sat on that bench, personal political views may have played a part.  Wearing a brooch that implied she had taken down the Hulk (the nick name some use of the prime minister) and bragging that she had done so was, putting it mildly, insensitive.  And certainly not neutral.     

There are many reason why we are in the place we are.  The main one of course is that extreme Remainers refuse to accept the result of the biggest democratic vote our nation has ever undertaken.  That those Courts don’t consider this democratic fact in any of their judgements perhaps says something about what they see as their priorities.  Upholding the democratic will of the nation?  Or continually upholding the complainants who seek to overturn that democratic mandate? Seems increasingly more like the latter.