rationalskepticism.org

zoon wrote:

Thommo wrote:

ronmcd wrote:I think it's more that the Judges felt Parliament was prevented from making decisions, and so they have been returned to their previous status of not being prorogued.

Well, clearly they felt that, as obviously on any occasion that parliament cannot sit it cannot make decisions. I would be surprised if anyone would not spot that.

However, the courts rule on matters of law, and the judgment at least (I have not yet had time to read the full summary) is quite clear that this alone is not unlawful. Their reasoning is that there must be a legal limit on the exercise of prerogative powers for else the system would be undemocratic; that it is the courts' place to decide where such a limit lies and then to determine if a particular exercise lies within those limits.

Having read the judgment statement there is certainly merit in the line of reasoning they used to decide where the legal limit lies (essentially they agree that short prorogations are fine, except in "exceptional" circumstances, an appellation they apply, not unreasonably, to present circumstances, in which they say a suitable justification must be given to make the exercise lawful). Nonetheless it does appear to me that if the court can give themselves authority to create such principles, they will do so again, rather than relying on parliament to fill in the gaps that arise from where parliament has failed to legislate on constitutional matters and finds such gaps lacking.

It does appear that is charting the path society and our systems will take in the future.

I'm hazy, but isn't this how the system has always worked? Parliament makes laws, and judges rule on how the laws are to be interpreted in the particular cases which come up before the courts, filling in gaps if necessary?