Questioning the Supreme Court's Judgement

I have seldom seen such uncritical glee as the reaction to the Supreme Court's decision. I too think the prorogation was deceitful and rotten, but it is no business of the courts. Please, instead of relying on what commentators say, read the judgement. Just because the Supreme Court rules something unlawful (even -- or perhaps especially -- if it does so unanimously) does not mean we all should submit to the decision uncritically. It is one's civic duty to scrutinise, a duty which one should not shy away from on account of silly unthinking people jeering 'what do you know?' or 'listen to the experts'. The opinions of Supreme Court judges have weight of course, but there is no such thing as judicial infallibility and one should not blindly accept the decisions of courts. They do and will get things wrong for all sorts of reasons.

I've read the judgement. (Read it here.) I cannot find any positive evidence in the document for their decision. I see not-especially-relevant cases cited to justify this encroachment into politics. And I see a lot of speculation and deduction, better suited to detective fiction than legal judgements.

They argue that they can find no 'reasonable justification' for the prorogation. They decide this by way of process of elimination: it can't have been x, y or z, therefore it must be this. As there is no direct evidence to support the government's reason for prorogation, they write that

'It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.' (paragraph 61)

By my reading, this is as if to say the government is guilty until proven innocent. Moreover, as there is no direct evidence, in other words no written document or statute -- which is the nature of constitutional conventions -- then how can this possibly be the business of the Supreme Court? It is a political matter. The Court surely does not, or rather should not, have the power to make convention into law.

One justification they give for their encroachment into politics is that

'the courts have the responsibility of upholding the values and principles of our constitution and making them effective' (paragraph 39). 

Actually, 'values and principles' are not things about which the courts should rule, unless these value and principles have been written explicitly into law.

In paragraph 49 they write,

'a prerogative power is therefore limited by statute and the common law, including, in the present context, the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.' 

On what grounds do they believe they have the authority to judge something as abstract as 'the constitutional principles [my emphasis] with which it [the prerogative power] would otherwise conflict'?

It sounds to me like the ridiculous idea of living constitutionalism popular in America. Indeed, the most important effect of this decision does not have to do with parliament but with the Supreme Court. It is a rebalancing of the constitution in the Court's favour. It will surely, therefore, become more like the US Supreme Court, which I for one certainly don't want.