Jonathan Sumption (previous judge in the messi* UK "Supreme" Court) on BBC**: Judges do laws.* The "Supreme" Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. Scotland is hence on its own. And does Klevius have to remind you that on top of this the "country" called United Kingdom plays football as four (4) diefferent countries. No wonder Brexit is a Messit.
** BBC seems to be much better at spreading misinformation and propaganda (i.e. fake news) as well as at defending islamofascism against "islamophobic" Human Rights" defenders, than questioning the judge's statements.
Peter Klevius: Judges don't do laws. And if they try they are very bad judges. Judges make interpretations of the law. Only the legislator does laws, and the Supreme Court only assesses whether a law is well enough formulated and/or whether the intention of the legislator is fulfilled in a particular case so to guide future interpretations.
As Peter Klevius wrote in Demand for Resources (1992:43, ISBN 9173288411): Jurisprudence is the purest form of science, because it starts with a given answer (the law) and investigates whether a given problem (a case) fits the law (i.e. the intention of the legislator).
This book by Peter Klevius (1992, Demand for Resources) was philosophically proofread and accepted by Georg Henrik von Wright (Ludvig Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge University).
Problem with distinctions and gray areas should not be confused with jurisprudence more than e.g. similar tendencies in the scientific process.
Citations ought to be aligned with the problem - not with bias (drawing by P. Klevius).