From the text of the statement “The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices.”
It seems that the Supreme Court is not asserting its power over the Queen, rather that it is stating that the advice given to the Queen was unlawful.
It does put the Queen in a nice pickle. I’m sure she’s angry - but the question is, at whom?
It’s not the queen’s job to be angry. At least in a political sense. The crown gave up that perogative between the Magna Carta and victoria.
Now, they are merely puppets to a far greater power.
The conventional view is that the monarch is bound to follow the advice of her Prime Minister unless she is advised that to do so would be unconstitutional. That’s what she’s now been told.
For me, the most striking thing about this, apart from the judgement itself, is the unanimity - all 11 judges concurred. That seems to me to scotch any temptation to view the judgement as politically motivated. If there was a split, majority verdict, you would expect allegations of a vote split on political lines. But all 11?
The British judiciary is traditionally small-c conservative by temperament and unpolitical. If all 11 Supreme Court judges are born-again remainers or ‘globalists’ (whatever that means), then I’m a banana.