Few commentators expected that the UK Supreme Court would deliver a unanimous and unequivocal reply to the arguments which Gina Miller, Joanna Cherry and others brought against the decision by Boris Johnson, the prime minister, to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament. For constitutional lawyers, it was indeed exciting to see Brenda Hale, the president of the court, lay down the building blocks upon which a decision of great significance was established. One-word descriptions of the UK constitution as being essentially “legal” or “political” do not bring out the significance of history in our national life. And if our system of democratic government is the result of history, then it is clear that the development has never ceased.
很少有評論家認為，最高法院會對吉娜?米勒（Gina Miller）、喬安娜?切里（Joanna Cherry）等反對首相鮑里斯?約翰遜（Boris Johnson）建議女王暫休議會的人所提出的論點，作出一致和明確的答復。對于憲法律師來說，看到最高法院院長布倫達?黑爾（Brenda Hale）奠定了一項具有重大意義的決定的基礎，著實令人激動。僅用一詞來形容英國憲法本質上是“法律”或“政治”的，并不能揭示歷史在我們國家生活中的意義。如果我們的民主政府制度是歷史的結果，那么很明顯，這一發展從未停止過。