Juliar to put the High Court in its place

Look – and please do remember that I have a fervent dislike for our Prime Minister – there’s no way we’re going to go down the same limp-wristed route as the UK.

If our High Court decides to make an interpretative ruling that effectively negates the intentions of a law passed by our elected government, we’ll change the wording of that law to make it crystal clear to the judiciary who is actually in charge of our nation.   And it ain’t the Chief Justice.

Although the legislation has not yet been passed, Juliar has today convinced her cabinet and the Labor caucus to support her in the introduction of the requisite alterations to the Migration Act.

She has, sensibly and pragmatically, declared that the changes will not define any particular solution to our immigration problems, but will clarify the undisputed right of the current executive to take such actions as it considers necessary, irrespective of foreign legislation or the High Court’s view of our obligations under any foreign legislation to which we may be a signatory.   This should make it politically viable for Abbott and the opposition to support the amendments.

The Greens will, of course, oppose the changes, but if the (Liberal-National) Coalition goes with Labor, the Greens will be irrelevant.

Whether one agrees with Juliar’s Malaysian solution, or not (and I don’t), it is gratifying to see a government stand up for itself against overseas pressure and a left-wing bleeding heart liberal judiciary.

Incidentally, I have read the entire judgement, which is available on the High Court’s web site, and in my opinion the decision is politically motivated and ignores the intention of the legislators who passed the Act.    In other words, the Court has tossed the prime directive of its review function out of the window for extra-territorial motives.  

The solitary dissenting judgement is, in my view, correct – and it’s far better argued and written than the majority verdict.

Author: Bearsy

A Queensland Bear with attitude

17 thoughts on “Juliar to put the High Court in its place”

  1. Mr Bear: wouldn’t it be better to describe the Juliar as the Subprime Minister? But yes, I’m glad that Australia is taking a stand for itself and its territorial/national rights/integrity. Even the US has gone down the UK’s route. There are about 20 million illegal immigrants in the US, though a number of people respond angrily when they’re called that. They’re supposed to be referred to as “undocumented workers”. If that’s too PC, then “undocumented immigrants” will suffice.

  2. We have a similar problem in the UK where the ‘judiciary’ act in a social capacity when making rulings when they should be confined to ruling on matters of law.

  3. I know Bearsy it should have read ‘We do have…’. It was intended as agreement as we have gone beyond simply being ‘limp wristed’ on legal rulings based on interpretation of the law (of course you may have meant just that) 😉

  4. Sorry Donald, that goes right over my head.
    In the immortal words of Pauline Hanson, “Please explain …” 😕

  5. When the High Court chooses to meddle in affairs it has no business in, it is time to take matters as high as possible in Parliament/Senate (the pyramid) and rip their hearts out with new legislation (blunt spoon) 🙂

  6. Most of the judiciary in the UK at present act as though they are superannuated hippies, deliberately misinterpreting any legislation from a liberal leftie point of view (with a few noble exceptions after the riots). It is about time for elected judges, methinks!

  7. FEEG, what a load of bolleaux! How do you know what ‘most’ of the UK judiciary do? In fact most of them follow the rules. You only read about the meeja’s views on the rest.

  8. Janus. bolleaux yourself! There have been so many judgement that defy logic, because the actual laws are not clear. The judiciary ALWAYS put the worst possible interpretation on them.

  9. FEEG, I have to disagree with you vis-a-vis elected judges. That would be worse than elected politicians. I once attended a convention in Orange County where they were electing a local judges. Banners read ‘Vote for X. He will be an honest judge’. I was embarrassed just to be there. Britain’s justice system may not be perfect, but it has to be one of the best in the world. I have no problem with David Cameron doing a Juliar and changing the law to reflect what is intended. That is his prerogative as elected Prime Minister. But the law must be interpreted as it stands not as politicians would like it to be.

  10. Gentlemen – your courts follow Europe because you’ve ceded your sovereignty. They bypass your elected government, who do nothing about it.

    Our judges try to follow the UN and whoever else takes their fancy – so we slap them down. We still have the elsewhere outdated notion that the guys we elect call the shots – and no-one else. If we don’t like what they do, we sling them out after 3 years.

    Works for us. 🙂

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s