It is in all but name. It's an instruction on interpreting a piece of legislation in a different way than parliament intended. And which everyone had been happy with for the last 30 years. Where do these plumped up demagogues get off?
No it isn't, not in anyway whatsoever.
Well, let's agree to disagree on it then.
I think with the appointment of the odious Lady Hale recently, it's clear how the Supreme Court rolls.
'Odious'. Here we go again.
No, for the last 30 years, it was an interpretation of a piece of legislation as applied to actual cases, just as now it is a reviewed interpretation of a piece of legislation as applied to actual cases.
Legislation is not written to cover every conceivable circumstance in exact detail, since that would require a law that is pre-cognitive and accounts for every possible nuance and situation the could occur, which is impossible.
Some light reading for you - A. V. Dicey: Law of the Constitution
Again see above.
The Constitution rules all. Even the Crown.
Not Lady Hales though.
Lady Hale can be overruled by Parliament and she operates under the auspices of the Constitution and the rule of law. The only person who is above the law most of the time is the Monarch depending on what the Constitution and Parliament says.
I think you'll find that Lady Hale IS the law.
EU referendum was 'not legally binding' says Supreme Court judge hearing Brexit legal challenge appeal
Supreme court judge hints at legal hitch that could seriously delay Brexit
Tuesday 15 November 2016 13:40 GMTThe second link is 9 months old, so also a bit tumbleweed.