Jeppy

The court wasn't "dabbling" in politics but doing it's job of judicial review. The government was unable to give a reason for 5 weeks of total closure. Party conferences are covered by recess which allows parliament work to continue.

Parliament had the procedure of no confidence to block brexit. There was no law for the chicken supremes to review - so they just made up new law despite the fact parliament could have easily stopped Boris by a NCV. It was clear and unequivocal political dabbling

*sigh* you are not correct. Sorry. Constitutional experts including the Attorney General have not questioned the proprietary of what happened.

We live in a democracy and the people are supreme. Parliament had the necessary procedure to stop Boris if it had wanted. IT CHOSE NOT TO USE IT. They were too scared to take the POLITICAL action themselves and got some EU stooges in the court to do it for them

That's simply untrue. We live in a representative democracy and parliament is sovereign. The court ruled the government tried to stifle parliament by it's actions. It was stopped. Simple. Bye.

No we don't, we live in a democracy where we the people chose who governs. MPs are our agents who may act on our behalf so long as they act according to our wishes. They are not. They are acting unconstitutionally.

Since you fundamentaly misunderstand how our common law derived constitution works there is no point arguing further. Go educate yourself and try to see beyond your blinkered views. Oh and FYI 2016 wasn't legally binding. If you'd watched the AQ today you'd know that.

Why don't I ask the chicken supremes to rule whether the parliament that is subject to scrutiny by the people should now be forced to face that scutiny? Because the judges are totally biased and only want scrutiny when it helps them get their EU money.