Eadie’s primary task was to represent the government at the Supreme Court. However, his arguments should also be seen in a broader political and public context which went beyond the courtroom.
In seeking to rebut the arguments that the prorogation was unlawful, because it was motivated by an intention to prevent scrutiny of the executive for five weeks, Eadie was implicitly defending the character and integrity of the Prime Minister.
On the legal issue of justiciability, the crux is the constitutional question concerning the relationship between parliament, the executive and the courts.
Where should the line be drawn that determines whether a decision by government to prorogue parliament is a matter of politics, not law, and therefore not subject to judicial review?
Eadie explained that parliament has passed some legislation on prorogation, but in areas where there is no legislation, the prerogative remains.