Who and who?
The Rt Hon James Hacker MP and Sir Humphrey Appleby GCB KBE MVO. Now you remember. And, if you don’t, a pleasure awaits you.
For more on the redacted quotation from Yes, Minister, see “2. Every man, woman and country for themselves,” here: What Yes, Minister taught us about Europe – POLITICO
Today, the Supreme Court will start hearing the claim that the suspension of parliament was unlawful. 11 judges will hear the case, which will continue on Wednesday and Thursday.
It will be live-streamed and available to view later, if anyone is interested in watching three days of legal arguments.
Links on the Supreme Court website: Brexit-related judicial review cases
I watched some large chunks of the supreme court hearing, and in my (unlearned) opinion, the case against prorogation is doing well so far. There are still two more days of the hearing to come, however.
Lord Pannick presented a clear, confident, logical case that the court did have jurisdiction and that prorogation was unlawful. The judges had little to say, and didn’t question his major points at all.
Lord Keen for the UK government seemed to be flailing. He was hesitant, repeating himself excessively, and promising to address points at a later date. His arguments didn’t seem convincing. There were a number of politely hostile questions from several of the judges.
Thanks for the personal take on today’s proceedings, GreenWyvern; I hope others weigh in later. The AP story is very brief and avoids any editorializing (of course).
One of the things I love about this development is the ridiculously appropriate names of the lawyers. Pannick presenting what some detractors call “poject fear” and Keen representing those who really, really want to leave. 
Seriously, if two lawyers in a movie were named that people would say t was unbelievable.
I know the case isn’t strictly speaking about Brexit, but it just so happens that the anti-prorogue side is also anti-Brexit and the pro-prorogue side is pro-Brexit.
John Crace remarks in his politics sketch that it was a ‘bad day for nominative determinism’. He gives a humorous, but essentially accurate, account of the day in court:
Lord Pannick stays calm and Keen lacks interest at supreme court
Thanks; that was fun to read. I especially like the nickname “The Incredible Sulk”.
“The all-inaction superhero” 
One of the most basic rules of appellate advocacy: if a judge asks you a question, ANSWER IT RIGHT AWAY! Never defer. The question is weighing in the judge’s mind and failing to answer it may mean you never get back to it. The justice will remember she asked the question and you didn’t have an answe for it. That’s not good, when she’s sitting in her chambers, working on the decision.
Appellate advocacy is jazz, not an oratorio. Doesn’t matter if you have a neatly drawn out schéma for your submissions, and you plan to address issue 7 after your submissions on issue 6 and before issue 8. The judge asks the question about issue 7 while you’re on issue 4, and you pitch your neat little road map out the window and answer issue 7.
Then riff on it. “If I may follow up on your question, My Lord, I would suggest it takes us to another issue, equally problematic for my learned friends’s position …” and get back to making points you want to make. But you have to answer the question and weave them into your submissions.
(And how many metaphors did I mix there? No matter, if I answered the question. 
)
I’ll allow it.
Thank you, My Lord. 
I’m sure the chattering class is falling all over themselves trying to make a clever turn of phrase on those guys’ names but he Nailed It.
Hard to follow all this from a Yank perspective, because we have no such thing as prorogation (a measure that suspends the operation of the legislature without requiring new elections to it). Though perhaps keeping Congress nominally in session for recession-appointment purposes is a kind of anti-prorogation.
It’s normally just a routine matter. It formally ends a session of the Parliament or a Legislature, in the expectation that the government will call a new session into place in the near future. It terminates the legislative process for that session.
In Britain, it’s customary for the Crown to prorogue early in September to allow the parties to hold their annual conferences, but it’s normally just for a couple of weeks. Then there’s the state opening of Parliament, the Queen reads the Speech, and the new session is up and running.
What is highly suspicious here is the allegation that BoJo did it for a much longer time than normal, and to make it more difficult for Parliament to take action on Brexit (Not like the current Parliament has demonstrated any ability to do so in over two years…)
It’s the argument that he perverted the normal course of parliamentary procedure and lied to the Queen that makes this so explosive. As the Supreme Court of Canada has held, in a Westminster parliamentary system, a government action can be legal and yet unconstitutional. That’s sort of the flavor of this case.
You have one of those too, now?!
Boy, it sure makes things awkward, don’t it?!
Yes.
Of course, thats good only if you have an issue 7 at all. If it’s not something you considered, well the damn rostrum can be a lonely place.
I once was dealing with a client who was being singularly unhelpful in providing any evidence in support of the position he wanted me to take in court.
Exasperated, I said "I can’t make bricks without straw, you know. "
"“I just thought you would make up some fancy lawyer bafflegab,” he said, cheerily.
There aren’t enough :smack:
We always did, but technically it was the House or Lords (or at least, senior lawyers specifically appointed to the Lords for that purpose).