Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

A second day of the blockbuster Supreme Court hearing on Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament has drawn to a close.

It was no less fascinating than the first. Scottish advocate Aidan O'Neill, acting for the claimants in Scotland, took a decidedly more colorful and less forensic approach than the the one employed on Tuesday by Lord Pannick, his English counterpart, deploying references to everything from Shakespeare to Braveheart to the pattern of the carpet in the chamber.

Earlier, government barrister James Eadie was more measured, concerning himself with the central question of justiciability; namely that the prorogation of Parliament is a political decision that has no business in the courts.

By any measure, Eadie had the rougher time – the judges pressed him hard on whether the Queen could have said no to Johnson's request to suspend Parliament. And he came under considerable pressure over why no senior member of the government, beyond the Treasury solicitor, had provided sworn statements in the case.

But it would be unwise to draw any inference from the questioning – UK Supreme Court justices are notoriously inscrutable.

The court will return on Thursday morning for a third day of arguments and a decision in the case could come towards the end of the week. But, given the complexities of the arguments and the fact that two appeals are being heard at once, judges may need more time to deliberate.

So how will it go? Only a fool would make a prediction, but, broadly speaking, there are three paths they could take.