Financial Times:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Three pillars: parliament, judiciary, government<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

When the UK Supreme Court declared Boris Johnson\u2019s suspension of parliament unlawful,
\n…
\nCatherine Barnard, professor of European Union and employment law at the University of Cambridge.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Supreme Court has looked over the edge and pondered what our constitution might look like if we have players who don\u2019t play by the rules and, for example try to suspend parliament for a long period. They\u2019ve set down an important ruling to stop that happening in future.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cParliament hasn\u2019t functioned effectively because the government hasn\u2019t got a majority and the opposition is so divided,\u201d she said. \u201cThe executive, meanwhile, has a very aggressive agenda because of its ambitions for Brexit.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

…<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Supreme Court has declared that parliament is the senior partner in the relationship and that the governing executive is the junior partner,\u201d says Professor Vernon Bogdanor, a constitutional historian. \u201cWhat the Supreme Court has done is to reaffirm the established principle of the sovereignty of parliament.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

…<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Some constitutional experts are highly critical of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision. They believe that, far from making a careful judicial intervention, the Supreme Court is undertaking a naked power grab.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI do think the court has overstepped the mark,\u201d said Richard Ekins, associate professor of law at Oxford university and head of the Judicial Power Project at the Policy Exchange. \u201cIt is a startling judgment and I think it is badly mistaken.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Johnson\u2019s unlawful conduct has been called to account
\nHe added: \u201cIt\u2019s a very, very bold step by the court into the territory governed by the political constitution and shows a clear loss of faith in the political process. The court has chosen to assert jurisdiction in an area I and many other lawyers didn\u2019t think that it had.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

David Mundy, partner and parliamentary agent at BDB Pitmans, also said he found the Supreme Court\u2019s decision \u201cchallenging and potentially troublesome.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

He noted that the English High Court had last week ruled that there were insuperable difficulties in the courts being able to look at this area. \u201cYet the Supreme Court is saying there is no problem at all with the question of justiciability. I am very surprised by the decision.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The UK Supreme Court was established in 2009 and some legal experts believe that it is gradually trying to turn itself into a body similar to its US counterpart.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Supreme Court ruling: a landmark moment in British history<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The US Supreme Court can strike down any primary legislation, its justices are political appointees and its rulings \u2014 such as guaranteeing abortion rights \u2014 can bring big social change to US society.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n