Consider the Supreme Court’s comments in Miller (No 2) about the separation of powers and politically contentious cases at paras [31], [34] & [39]-[40]. Then read Nicol’s blog on the case.

Consider the Supreme Court’s comments in Miller (No 2) about the separation of powers and politically contentious cases at paras [31], [34] & [39]-[40]. Then read Nicol’s blog on the case.

[In Miller (No 2)] the Supreme Court acted in a partisan fashion as if it were the legal wing of Remain,and as a result the judiciary now needs to have its wings clipped.’Danny Nicol, ‘Supreme Court Against the People’, (reference above)

Where do the Supreme Court’s and Nicol’s respective comments each fall in the ongoing ‘legalconstitutionalism’ versus ‘political constitutionalism’ debate? Do you find Nicol’s criticisms of Miller(No 2) persuasive? Provide reasons for your answer