Australia's Courts Don't Care about Merits or Wisdom

[XDU]

another sweet delicious dodge, keep digging the hole deeper asked in my first post to you and you still haven't answered, that's a factual dodge and thread history proves it.

watch ill prove it again!

ill ask you AGAIN

1.) whos merits and wisdom would they consider and why would tht merit or wisdom be better than some others?
2.) by doing so wouldn't that be a way to void any laws and rights and simply rule however they felt?
3.) where does merit and wisdom come from
4.) we" do LOL (in reference to your claim that we pick people to use their judgment) what if somebody "better judgment" is not following the laws or rights?

What is a dodge to you?

 

[JasperL]

What I'm arguing is we elect people to become judges because we entrust them to have superior self-control. Judges very deliberately exercise that self-control to avoid being manipulated.

LOL. "Superior" to whom, measured how, by whom? "Self control" over what? "Manipulated" by whom?

 

[AGENT J]

What is a dodge to you?

"I" dont get to make up a definition of dodge it already has one and your post above is factually ANOTHER ONE LMAO
thanks for proving me right again!!

welp here we are in the same spot, me asking and your posts dodging so ill ask AGAIN

1.) whos merits and wisdom would they consider and why would tht merit or wisdom be better than some others?
2.) by doing so wouldn't that be a way to void any laws and rights and simply rule however they felt?
3.) where does merit and wisdom come from
4.) we" do LOL (in reference to your claim that we pick people to use their judgment) what if somebody "better judgment" is not following the laws or rights?

 

[JasperL]

Judges are elected on purpose not to be held accountable. That way, popularity contests don't bend their will.

They're entrusted as having superior character to the rest of us on purpose.

LOL, you're not making any sense. If they are elected, they are accountable to the electorate, same as the legislature and the president. The vote that elected them is as much a popularity contest for the judge as it is for the congressman, mayor, whatever they call those offices in Australia.

You're just inventing principles and pulling them from your back side. It's much easier to just state your case simply. You don't like the decision by the Immigration Minister and so you want the court to overrule that decision, and you do not care what the law says, who the law grants this power, or if the power was exercised consistent with the law. Judges should ignore the law, **** the law, and just do as you want. ALL HAIL THE BLACK ROBES!!!

 

[XDU]

"I" dont get to make up a definition of dodge it already has one and your post above is factually ANOTHER ONE LMAO
thanks for proving me right again!!

welp here we are in the same spot, me asking and your posts dodging so ill ask AGAIN

1.) whos merits and wisdom would they consider and why would tht merit or wisdom be better than some others?
2.) by doing so wouldn't that be a way to void any laws and rights and simply rule however they felt?
3.) where does merit and wisdom come from
4.) we" do LOL (in reference to your claim that we pick people to use their judgment) what if somebody "better judgment" is not following the laws or rights?

What definition are you using?

I'm familiar with dodge being a concrete term unlike merit and wisdom which are abstract terms. You're obviously using a word figuratively when I meant those words literally instead.

 

[AGENT J]

What definition are you using?

I'm familiar with dodge being a concrete term unlike merit and wisdom which are abstract terms. You're obviously using a word figuratively when I meant those words literally instead.

chooo chooo and the dodge train keeps chuggin!!!

welp here we are in the same spot, me asking and your posts dodging so ill ask AGAIN

1.) whos merits and wisdom would they consider and why would tht merit or wisdom be better than some others?
2.) by doing so wouldn't that be a way to void any laws and rights and simply rule however they felt?
3.) where does merit and wisdom come from
4.) we" do LOL (in reference to your claim that we pick people to use their judgment) what if somebody "better judgment" is not following the laws or rights?

 

[XDU]

LOL, you're not making any sense. If they are elected, they are accountable to the electorate, same as the legislature and the president. The vote that elected them is as much a popularity contest for the judge as it is for the congressman, mayor, whatever they call those offices in Australia.

You're just inventing principles and pulling them from your back side. It's much easier to just state your case simply. You don't like the decision by the Immigration Minister and so you want the court to overrule that decision, and you do not care what the law says, who the law grants this power, or if the power was exercised consistent with the law. Judges should ignore the law, **** the law, and just do as you want. ALL HAIL THE BLACK ROBES!!!

Yes, but judges don't regularly abide by a popularity contest among their peers unlike legislators who have to legislate among fellow legislators. Australia is a parliamentary system too. They don't have a president.

 

[XDU]

chooo chooo and the dodge train keeps chuggin!!!

welp here we are in the same spot, me asking and your posts dodging so ill ask AGAIN

1.) whos merits and wisdom would they consider and why would tht merit or wisdom be better than some others?
2.) by doing so wouldn't that be a way to void any laws and rights and simply rule however they felt?
3.) where does merit and wisdom come from
4.) we" do LOL (in reference to your claim that we pick people to use their judgment) what if somebody "better judgment" is not following the laws or rights?

Choo choo is a strange definition for dodge.

If you want to go dodge trains, have fun. I'm here to have a discussion.

 

[Mach]

When a virus gives you total control over other people's lives, take it.

Only a moron would believe what you wrote has any truth to it. ****ing ----- have no clue what freedom or control is, if they keep using it like this. So absurd.

 

[AGENT J]

Choo choo is a strange definition for dodge.

If you want to go dodge trains, have fun. I'm here to have a discussion.

sweet irony!!!! LMAO

honest, integrity based discussions cant behave when your posts keep dodging basic questions about your statement LMAO

lets see if you mean it . .

“The court does not consider the merits or wisdom of the decision,” the judges said. “The task of the court is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the decision.”
Well OK then. I guess Australia's just a joke... not that anyone who's familiar with the country didn't already know that, but at least now it's official.

1.) whos merits and wisdom would they consider and why would tht merit or wisdom be better than some others?
2.) by doing so wouldn't that be a way to void any laws and rights and simply rule however they felt?
3.) where does merit and wisdom come from
4.)" we" do LOL (in reference to your claim that we pick people to use their judgment) what if somebody "better judgment" is not following the laws or rights?

 

[JasperL]

Yes, but judges don't regularly abide by a popularity contest among their peers unlike legislators who have to legislate among fellow legislators. Australia is a parliamentary system too. They don't have a president.

Define "regularly".

How do you know what they "regularly" "abide by" and how did you determine there's a difference in the popularity contests judges "abide by" versus legislators.

This theory of yours appears to be just random assertions that you think might, if you hold your mouth just right, back up your baseless opinions, but if there's any basis to your views, please post it.

 

[XDU]

Define "regularly".

How do you know what they "regularly" "abide by" and how did you determine there's a difference in the popularity contests judges "abide by" versus legislators.

This theory of yours appears to be just random assertions that you think might, if you hold your mouth just right, back up your baseless opinions, but if there's any basis to your views, please post it.

What's regular is what they're regulating - the courts.

Judges regulate courts by ruling on the bench by themselves unless they're on a panel, and even then, their goal isn't to negotiate with their peers to get the ruling they want (which is often confirmed by how justices will deliberate by themselves in contrast to a jury before coming together and deciding who among themselves will publish their opinions). Their goal is to establish case law precedent to interpret legal language in accordance with their published legal opinion.

Legislators legislate among fellow legislators to get laws passed in contrast.

Again, this is an idealist debate because of the international nature of the topic. It doesn't need practical examples to be accustomed with.

 

[JasperL]

What's regular is what they're regulating - the courts.

Judges regulate courts by ruling on the bench by themselves unless they're on a panel, and even then, their goal isn't to negotiate with their peers to get the ruling they want (which is often confirmed by how justices will deliberate by themselves in contrast to a jury before coming together and deciding who among themselves will publish their opinions). Their goal is to establish case law precedent to interpret legal language in accordance with their published legal opinion.

None of those statements of how you believe courts operate has a thing to do with judges weighing the merits of a legally exercised discretion of authority, and overturning that decision if they don't like it, and might have decided differently if they'd been the one granted this power under the law, which they weren't.

Legislators legislate among fellow legislators to get laws passed in contrast.

Again, this is an idealist debate because of the international nature of the topic. It doesn't need practical examples to be accustomed with.

Right, there's no need to ground this discussion in reality, what the law is, what discretion was granted, how a person might abuse that discretion granted him by the law, as passed by the legislature, etc. You ideally want judges to overturn decisions you don't like, cause you want them to, and apparently want the country run by unaccountable judges in black robes, so long as they make decisions you agree with.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Courts rule on the legality of a government decision. They're not supposed to do any more.

 

[XDU]

None of those statements of how you believe courts operate has a thing to do with judges weighing the merits of a legally exercised discretion of authority, and overturning that decision if they don't like it, and might have decided differently if they'd been the one granted this power under the law, which they weren't.

Right, there's no need to ground this discussion in reality, what the law is, what discretion was granted, how a person might abuse that discretion granted him by the law, as passed by the legislature, etc. You ideally want judges to overturn decisions you don't like, cause you want them to, and apparently want the country run by unaccountable judges in black robes, so long as they make decisions you agree with.

That position is outrageously cynical on too many levels to consider constructive.

It's not clear why it warrants a response. What's ideal and what people like don't even exist on the same plane. We like tangible experiences, not abstract values.

2+2=purple... what?

 

[JasperL]

That position is outrageously cynical on too many levels to consider constructive.

It's not clear why it warrants a response. What's ideal and what people like don't even exist on the same plane. We like tangible experiences, not abstract values.

2+2=purple... what?

You're upset, for some reason, that judges are tasked to and did interpret the law, determine if a decision was made legally under the law, and apparently are confused about a system with separated powers. If you want judges as the ultimate deciders of every decision, that's fine. Seems stupid to me.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You're upset, for some reason, that judges are tasked to and did interpret the law, determine if a decision was made legally under the law, and apparently are confused about a system with separated powers. If you want judges as the ultimate deciders of every decision, that's fine. Seems stupid to me.

Yes. Deciding the "merits or wisdom" of government decisions is a power that belongs to the People, not to the Courts.

Though I believe Australia has a common law system, it does have a constitution. If I were taking Mr. Djokovic's case I would argue that the Minister having up-and-down power to deny entry to the country violates the Constitution ... being a "judicial power".

Mr Djokovic probably did well to save his money though. I'm not a lawyer, and particularly not an Australian lawyer.

Hey, I just found this:

Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2019

Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by

www.aph.gov.au

Looks like another failure. Australian don't like rights that much:

1988 Australian referendum (Rights and Freedoms) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's how they amend their constitution, with a majority in the majority of States. My guess is that "freedom of religion" is what spooked the voters.

 

[JasperL]

Yes. Deciding the "merits or wisdom" of government decisions is a power that belongs to the People, not to the Courts.

Though I believe Australia has a common law system, it does have a constitution. If I were taking Mr. Djokovic's case I would argue that the Minister having up-and-down power to deny entry to the country violates the Constitution ... being a "judicial power".

The power given to the Minister did not include denying entry to anyone meeting the requirements. It was not an arbitrary or discretionary power to deny, but an arbitrary or discretionary power to allow that person into the country who otherwise didn't meet the legal requirements. Bottom line is Djokovic lied on his visa application, at least once, likely twice, and if Djokovic was a prole, he'd have been deported and we'd never heard about the case. So the discretionary power was to overrule the decision of the immigration court or whatever, and BECAUSE he's the world's #1 tennis player, playing in the Australian Open, where he was #1 seed, so deserved a waiver, in spite of his lying on his visa.

Mr Djokovic probably did well to save his money though. I'm not a lawyer, and particularly not an Australian lawyer.

Hey, I just found this:

Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2019

Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by

www.aph.gov.au

Looks like another failure. Australian don't like rights that much:

1988 Australian referendum (Rights and Freedoms) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's how they amend their constitution, with a majority in the majority of States. My guess is that "freedom of religion" is what spooked the voters.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The power given to the Minister did not include denying entry to anyone meeting the requirements. It was not an arbitrary or discretionary power to deny, but an arbitrary or discretionary power to allow that person into the country who otherwise didn't meet the legal requirements. Bottom line is Djokovic lied on his visa application, at least once, likely twice, and if Djokovic was a prole, he'd have been deported and we'd never heard about the case. So the discretionary power was to overrule the decision of the immigration court or whatever, and BECAUSE he's the world's #1 tennis player, playing in the Australian Open, where he was #1 seed, so deserved a waiver, in spite of his lying on his visa.

Yeah. The "Liberals" are the center-right party in Australia, so it pains me to admit they got this one right.

Aussies love their sport, pretty much whatever's on, so it has probably cost the Liberals some votes. Though who knows, it might soften up some of the centrists who have qualms about offshore detention.

Australia basically has a two-party system in Parliament (which is dominant) but Green Party and some even-more minor parties have holdings in the Senate (and in State upper houses.) Immigration illustrates exactly how tenacious Two Party is: the Greens take the leftist vote off of center-left Labour, and without them Labour has no incentive to oppose the Liberal/National Parties in their harsh treatment of immigrants. Nor does Labour seem committed to fighting climate change: the strongest supporters among the voters have already gone Green. Sometimes Greens do get some policy up, in exchange for their vote in the Senate, but: by uniting the two main parties against them I honestly think they do more harm than good. It's quite discouraging.