Supreme Court to hear the Legal Challenge over Parliament Prorogation by Gina Miller & John Major

The video discusses the legal debate surrounding the prorogation of Parliament, with the Supreme Court set to determine if the Prime Minister acted unlawfully. It highlights contrasting rulings from Scottish and English courts, the potential implications of the legal challenge, and historical precedents like the Gina Miller case. The video also addresses public perception and the pressure on the court to make a swift decision.

What was the main reason the Scottish Appeal Court ruled against the prorogation of Parliament?

• It was seen as a necessary political decision.

• It was viewed as a tactic to deliberately hinder Parliament.

• It was considered a routine government procedure.

• It was believed to be a decision made in haste.

Why did the English High Court decide not to intervene in the prorogation issue?

• They agreed with the Scottish court's ruling.

• They believed it was a non-justiciable political decision.

• They thought it was a minor legal issue.

• They were not aware of the prorogation.

What is the significance of having 11 justices hear the prorogation case?

• It was a request from the Prime Minister.

• It is a standard number for all Supreme Court cases.

• It indicates the case's complexity and importance.

• It shows a lack of confidence in fewer judges.

What was the outcome of Gina Miller's previous legal challenge related to Brexit?

• The decision was postponed indefinitely.

• The case was dismissed as irrelevant.

• The High Court ruled that only Parliament could trigger Article 50.

• The government was allowed to trigger Article 50 without Parliament.

What could be a potential perception if the Supreme Court rules to reopen Parliament?

• That the court is supporting the government's decision.

• That the court is neutral and unbiased.

• That the court is attempting to undermine the referendum's outcome.

• That the court is acting in the best interest of the public.