Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Thorne noted how the “powerful Divisional Court” in England found Mr Johnson acted lawfully in advising the Queen to prorogue. Court lawyer.
The lawyer also noted Lord Doherty’s preliminary verdict dismissed the Scottish case and found the Prime Minister had not broken the law.
Lord Doherty said it was for the electorate to judge Mr Johnson’s action rather than the courts.
He said the courts should not interfere with the political decision to prorogue Parliament.
Mr Thorne went on to praise the English courts for taking a similar stance in the case launched by Gina Miller.
He said: “In England, the Divisional Court has trenchantly accepted that although it is now well-established that decisions made pursuant to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative are not immune from judicial review, the courts will not review political questions.
“The Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice to Her Majesty were inherently political and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy, a decision at one with political reality.”
What's a lawyer
Mr Thorne explained that the court outlined that matters of “high policy” or that are “political” are not capable of being decided by legal principles or by a court.
He said that the English court “accepted that the Prime Minister’s advise to the Sovereign to prorogue Parliament and given effect by Order in Council was political” and therefore it’s unable to be decided in a court of law.
Mr Thorne added: “It [the Divisional Court] recognised that Parliament may be prorogued for various reasons and there is no statue, law or convention requiring it to sit in constant session and not just limited to preparing for the Queen’s Speech.”
The cases heard in the English and Scottish courts, as well as a third equivalent proceeding held in Northern Ireland, will all be considered by the Supreme Court as early as September 17.
The UK’s highest court arranged a three-day hearing to join together the three appeals.
Barefaced LIE at the heart of Theresa May's Brexit brutally exposed [PODCAST]
Hartley-Brewer's brilliant response to Labour MP's no deal Brexit scaremongering [COMMENT]
Of the Supreme Court’s involvement, Mr Thorne said: “It may well be that it [the Supreme Court] will recognise the judicial limitation of intervening in overtly political matters.
“It would be wise to do so especially in present political circumstances.”
Earlier today, former Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption echoed Mr Thorne by saying challenges to the prorogation of Government were “essentially political” and “not a question of law”.
In a Sky News interview debating whether the courts should be involved in politics, Lord Sumption took the view that the Scottish ruling was “essentially political”.
He said: “The question is whether it is actually a highly political argument or, as Gina Miller and Joanna Cherry are arguing, whether it is really a question of law.
Description of being a lawyer
“My own view is that it is essentially political.”
He added: “The whole issue turns not on whether the Government has power to prorogue Parliament, it obviously does, but on what kind of motives will justify that.
“I think it would be very far-fetched to suggest that political motives cannot enter into decision to prorogue Parliament.
“So the problem is how do you distinguish between good political motives and bad political motives. That is not a function in which courts are well adapted to perform.”