Disbelieving, But If So, Parliament Doesn't Go To Court

I still don't think Day's incoherence is last word on Con respect for democracy - too incredible. But if true, then for Parliament to go to court to protect its prerogatives would undermine those same prerogatives. There are no "written" constitutional issues here (ex: division of powers, human rights), the government has acknowledged that. So question: is parliament supreme? If yes, then for parliament to submit itself to judgment of court on its supremacy would undermine that same principle of supremacy. Courts asked to rule should refuse and send back to parliament. And parliament cannot and must not pursue this in courts. All the issues have been decided. Parliament is either supreme or it isn't, parliamentary democracy exists or it doesn't. All political systems depend, at the end of the day, on agreeing to abide by basic rules. If we are a democracy, a parliamentary democracy, then all the players have to abide by consequent rule of parliamentary supremacy, subject to countervailing constitutional laws. Any who don't are no longer democrats but authoritarians. So if you a democrat, a Canadian parliamentary democrat, then you refuse to have parliament appear before any other body, like a court, to affirm its supremacy. Supremacy, by its very nature, is not subject to any other body. Were the Cons to refuse to obey parliament, they would be breaking the law, parliament's law, the supreme law. Opposition should not, must not, cannot, seek remedy before the courts, as that would deny parliamentary supremacy. Even should they, which they shouldn't, courts should refuse to hear them, or, à la limite, issue instant judgment reaffirming their inferiority v-à-v parliament and reaffirming that all, executive included, are subject to, beneath, parliament.