but that's where they seem to be neatly ducking a question

because at what point *does* prorogation become justiciable?

You can't say never - as what's to stop a majority govt shutting down parliament for months at a time? That's harking back to the days where monarchs had absolute power.

So there has to be a question of degree, which was alluded to in this judgment where he suggested you should look at the reasons for challenging before whether it can be challenged or not.

Dunno. This is all too much like black letter law. *shudder*

Posted By: CWC, Sep 12, 15:10:38