Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Biscuit©]

Annew, SG tend to have a monochromatic view of life itself, not just the law.  Now, you kids go rumble.

That reminds me of a graph I did:

It's not very refined, but the gist of it is that the younger you are, the more monochromatic your view of, well, everything is. As you mature, the grey matter expands. 

[SG]

In order to administer the law properly a judge certainly needs to be impartial, however they also need to have some understanding of what society as a whole believes in.

That is what elections are for.

Vote in the people who will make the laws in accordance with your wishes.

  If you are suggesting that our current government enacts laws with impartiality then I think you are sadly mistaken.

If you think I am suggesting that then you cannot read.

Of course governemnts are not impartial, they are not meant to be.

WHat they are (in our case) is elected.  Thus they make laws and if enough of us disagree with them then they are voted out.  Judges on the other hand are appointed at some point after which they have pretty close to zero accountability.

  I am not advocating for judges that are biased or irresponsible but we do need judges that are not afraid to interpret the law in a way that is responsive to the changing needs of our society.

i.e. biased.

How does a judge determine the changing needs of society as a whole?  That is the purpos of elections, to poll the entire populace, not merely some very small subset who have contact with the judiciary.

Justice Kirby is a wonderful and intelligent judge in my opinion and if one bothers to read his judgments then you would see that.

I would see that Kirby is wonderful and intellignet in your opinion by reading his judgements?  Kirby references you?

Wow.  No wonder you think judges should base findings on what they think rather than the ratio decidendi.

If you look at our laws I do not believe you can say that all of them are relevant to our present society. 

Again, that is the reason for ELECTED government. 

Want to change the law? 

Campaign on it, seek a mandate.

But NEVER EVER assume as an unelected official that you have the right to "creatively interpret".

And government only changes the laws it wants to not necessarily the laws that need review, take the IR laws as an example.  I do not see how you can say they are responsive to society but rather part of the governments conservative agenda and something Howard wanted for years.

So, you admit that Howard has wanted them for years.

One assumes you have known this for some time.

Howard is an elected official, elected to do the very thing you know he has wanted to do for years (amongst others).

And yet because YOU disagree with Howard's view then YOUR opinion is right and should overrule the legally elected government.

Wonderful.  Just wonderful

SG you seem to have a very black and white view of the law, but in my experience it is never that easy to simply say, " what does the law say ".  If you want an example of this go and read the endless discussions on what the word reasonable can mean depending on its context.

I beleive teh law should be interpreted and applied as written with the focus being not on what the judges think is right but on the point of law in question.

Judicial activism leads to all sorts of wierd results.

Go read Bryant v Maloney and tell me what that does in terms of contract law.

And btw I hate the expression " derogatory term for female genitalias." and not sure of its relevance in your reply, or in fact to this discussion.

I hate the fact you hate it. 

So suck it up.  Somehow I think you'll deal with it.

SG

[Lord Biscuit©]

Hey lawyer types. There was a front page article in the SMH (and apparently on Ch9) about some guy who has been charged over throwing rocks at cars, which left a girl near dead. He is out on bail, and his mates were let go without charge.

He is named and pictured, and to a certain extent, located by the article.

Does this mean this guy can no longer get a fair trial, and can get off the charge, even if he did do it? If so, do the media understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

[a passing lunatic]

yes. no. obviously.

[Thaluikhain]

There's a difference between "not understanding" and "not caring".

[Emperor Fadeaway]

In my view Mr Ruddock completely misses the point about the need for laws to change and develop with the needs of society.  He and his government now have what they want, a conservative bench.  Thank goodness we still have his Honour Justice Kirby on the bench, even if he is mostly in the dissenting judgments.

Yes. I've read a lot of his judgements. He is always dissenting because he is a poof. He thinks funny. Thank God he's gone.

[Emperor Fadeaway]

I agree with you Nick 2.  That is why Kirby J's dissents are always so important and worth reading.

No they aren't. They are full of shit and the most worthless waste of paper ever. Even the toilet paper I use is worth more, after I've wiped my arse with it.

[Emperor Fadeaway]

I will certainly miss Kirby J when he leaves the bench, and am a bit suprised at his low dissent rate but that is good to know.

LOW?! LOW!?!? DID YOU SAY LOW YOU FUCKING IDIOT!?!?!?

One-third of all cases that comes before him, he disagrees with the majority view. I do not think that is low. Worst judicial appointment in Australian history.

You are either his mum, or you're gay yourself.

There's no other reason you could possibly praise him so highly.