Most legal systems do not support well-argued stories on both sides, the reason is, it is not the case the physical universe supports well-argued stories on both sides of the arbitrary proposition of physical chemistry, this not only happens in law, but there is also confident in its regularity that we put lawyers under a professional obligation of zealous representation without even asking whether the client’s case has a leg for zeal to stand on. Why do most cases support well-argued stories on both sides? is it due to the nature of human conduct? is it due to the ambiguity of virtual and responsibility? is it due to the flexibility of interpretation? Is every deed somehow intrinsically subject to morally polar interpretations? or is it due to the content of our laws? is it due to the ways that deeds, interpretations and interact? Consequently what the thought experiment proves is that at least our decisive part of the reason why almost cases in our legal system do support well-argued stories on both sides is that the content of our laws gives support to all these parties.The judge who has to choose between two well-written briefs or two well-argued precedents is forced to decide between two paradigms and to the extent operates one large step beyond normal legal reasoning toward revolutionary legal reasoning. But the judge is still working within a legal paradigm, still choosing premises from within the system, and in that sense is not fully revolutionary.The bedrock of British constitutional has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy or parliamentary sovereignty, according to which statutes passed by parliament are the U.K `s supreme and final source of law. (wikipedia.org)Statutory law is often considered the most important source of the British constitution. In practice, some principles and elements of the constitutional, such as rule of law, are ancient and ingrained in the U.K `s political culture that they would extremely difficult to abolish.