In a similar case, they have already judged that the question is "eminently political" and therefore not in their purview. This, if confirmed on Thursday, underlines the profound brokenness of the current non-Constitution.

I would argue that fundamentally, if written rules do not exist to delimit the powers of the executive and of parliament, then the courts must have a role to decide what is legal. To refuse this role is, in this case, and therefore in future cases, to accept and authorise a rolling coup d'état by the executive, by allowing it to seize the prerogative of a rogue prorogation.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}