My sense currently is that the Government has the legal right of it - a prorogation of this length and/or for political purposes is not unprecedented, and Parliament passed a law earlier this year effectively restricting the length of prorogation, which has been followed.
The issue of whether Johnson lied to the Queen is trickier. Whilst that’s obviously unacceptable (if it’s proven), it’s not clear whether the response should come from the judiciary, the Queen or the electorate.
Meanwhile…
BJ apparently doesn’t quite understand the single market. Big shocker, I know, but… damn, that’s pretty wild if true.
The question is whether the government was attempting to frustrate parliamentary sovereignty by preventing parliament from sitting at a crucial time. If so, it was unlawful, and that’s what the Scottish Court of Session found.
Shouldn’t that be “M’lud”? 
Here’s CNN’s coverage of the UKSC arguments: Live: Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament probed in Supreme Court
Interesting that the question of the Queen’s discretion to either grant or deny prorogation came up.
It continues to be a good press day for BJ:
That would be hilarious if it weren’t for the fact that this compulsive liar is in charge of the country.
Un-fucking-believable the world we are all living in right now.
What’s really fucked up is that his poll ratings will probably go up again. To borrow a phrase, Johnson is “the man who falls up.” :smack:
“You have the Mother of Parliaments being shut down by the Father of Lies!” — Aidan O’Neil QC, ending his case against the government in the supreme court.
Pfft, you’d think a QC, even a Scottish one 
, would know that England is the Mother of Parliaments, not Westminster.
I don’t speak British.
While John Bright’s original quotation indeed referred to England as the Mother of Parliaments, using the phrase to refer to Westminster specifically has been around for awhile; see, e.g., this 1950 documentary on the opening of the rebuilt Commons after war damage.
That doesn’t dispose of the issue. The argument here is not that a prorogation of such length is inherently or automatically unlawful. The argument is that this advice to prorogue was given for an improper purpose, and the length of the prorogation is mentioned in the context of the light it casts on the purpose of the advice. Previous lengthy prorogations may have been advised for proper purposes; it doesn’t follow that this one has been.
That issue is not directly before the court, and none of the courts involved have made any explicit comment on it, much less a ruling. The “lying to the queen!” point is based on (a) a inference that Johnson offered the same reasons for the prorogation to the Queen as he offered to Parliament - which I think is a pretty safe inference plus (b) the Court of Session has found that those were not in fact his true reasons.
Classically, the response should come not from the judiciary, the Queen or the electorate, but from Johnson himself - resignation - or from his party - visit from the men in grey suits, invitation to spend a few moments alone in a room with a loaded revolver. If neither of those happens, then a parliamentary Vote of No Confidence.
There was an entertaining submission this morning by Ronan Lavery QC, from Northern Ireland.
Lavery: *(Rambles on at length about how his client’s son was killed in the Troubles, about the Good Friday Agreement, about the effects of Brexit on NI) *
Lady Hale: Mr Lavery, the issues you are raising are not relevant to this case. The court is not looking at the rights and wrongs of Brexit. We are only considering the decision to prorogue Parliament.
Lavery: (Rambles on regardless)
Lord Sales: I fail to see how any of this has anything to do with the prorogation of Parliament. I’m afraid this strikes me as completely irrelevant to the legal questions we have to decide.
Lavery: (Continues rambling on regardless)
Lord Wilson: I am worried that people who are watching this case, who may have just started watching the transmission, may think that this case is about Brexit, or about its impact on Northern Ireland. It is not. We are not judging Brexit, or its effects, we are considering the legality of proroguing Parliament. Please don’t abuse our patience and don’t abuse Lady Hale’s patience.
Lavery: (Continues rambling on regardless) … And my client’s son was murdered because of conditions in Northern Ireland at the time. That is why he feels strongly about this, and why he wants the supreme court to intervene.
Lavery seems to have finished, but looks at his watch and sees that he still has five mintues left.
Lady Hale: Please don’t feel that you have to use up all of the time allocated. We are always happy when people finish early.
I’ve seldom seen anyone so stubborn and oblivious. How did this guy become a QC?
The next submission, from Mike Fordham QC, from Wales, was the exact opposite. Highly technical, highly focused, logical, rapid and clear. The judges happily allowed him extra time, besides the five minutes Lavery didn’t use. The submission by the counsel for John Major was excellent and interesting.
I think you mean “invitation to spend a few moments alone in a ditch with a revolver”. He did say, after all.
OK I’m convinced. The whole Boris Johnson election is really just a viral marketing campaign by the BBC for a revival of “Yes, Prime minister”.
At least you don’t have the Americans laughing at you.
After watching the summing up, I’m pretty sure the supreme court will find that parliament was unlawfully prorogued.
Keen did better than on Monday, but… he made an absolutely weird argument that even if the prorogation was unlawful, it couldn’t be undone, and parliament would remain prorogued unless the PM felt like doing something about it.
Keen makes his weird argument, and the judges tear it to shreds
Pannick gave a masterly summing up. Then the judges started discussing with him - at length and in detail - what would happen if (just supposing) they were to find that it was illegal (not saying they would, but…) how should the judgement be framed for maximum effect? What were the likely possibilities after the judgement, so they could close off all paths Johnson might take?
Pannick is of the opinion that the speakers of the two houses of parliament can reconvene parliament themselves, whether Johnson likes it or not.
They laughed when I told them I would star in the reality TV reboot of Yes, Minister. Well, they’re not laughing now!