Correct, absolutely correct, is David Flint, with a comment in his article on High Court succession,
This is because the essence of our remarkably successful constitution is that the best guarantee of freedom lies in the common law and representative, responsible government.
The job is to appoint a Judge to the High Court on both counts, the nominee is stiff incommon law, throughly grounded in it, and won’t brook compromising common law, even from politicians. That, unfortunately, is not something all the parties in Palriament are keen on. Costello himslef, is fond of substituting regulation for the rule of common law. the explanation is straightforward, the advance of common law and the pollies’ liking for largescale theft (taxation) and extortion is unlawful. It is pointed, in common law, cases, as commercial cases amplify, entials hammering out of language, except language hammering fials somewhat when the substance of a case is subject to some bloody decree issued by some bloody commie tier of govt., and that is when Judges fudge language, they have to fudge because, if they were consistent and stiff in common law, much of govt. `regulation’ would fail, would have to be rescinded for , effectively what it is, lawlessness, most of it is unlawful. That is a dilemma for those judges who are otherwise throughly learned in common law and proud to serve its advance.
That contradiction is germane to why new appointees in lower courts are in increasing numbers totally ignorant of common law, whose notion of law is indebted to the totalitarian speculations seminally put by Hobbes and Comtes. The other source of those absolutist notions of law is the relaity, the history of `government’ in Europe is one of absoutist govt. throught to today, underpinning why the absolutist pseudo-philosophies of law were promoted, they gave specious jsutification for absolutism. The same holds in Oz, from the major parties at that. The great danger comes form the lawyers themsleves.
Common law is no longer the core of schoalrship in law schools in Australia today. To the contrary, it is now possible for someone to expend their entire career a the bar and, if appointed, the bench, totally ignorant of it. Today, indeed, many graduates just have no clue at all about common law at all, a conversation running the interest in jurisprudence frequently enough, will find one of the chumps saying something like:
‘Common law… ah , you mean custom.’
And, one has had conversations just like that with some of the younger generation of judges. Epistemologically, the reality is, judges and lawyers are now being selected on their abilty to act from the assumptions of absolutism as expressed as regulation as the definitionof law. And be assured, such judges do hold to a Hobbesian and Comteian notion of law: those notions are completely antithetical to common law, to what it is, what it serves, thus its function, and its generation. They are the sort of judges the parties in Oz are fond of appointing and promoting.
Thus, merit alone is not sufficient for appointment to the bench, and promotion of judges to superior courts, since a judge of that absolutist stamp can be appointed none-the-less on their merits as a Judge but, in asserting the totalitarain notions of law, which are being inculcated in even the old law schools of OZ. Bye the bye, one wedge that brough about this lamentable state of affairs is `consitutional law’ and the trouble is, it is hocus pocus as so many articles are in the Consitutions Federal and States, hocus pocus which is specious justification for absolutism, and just to check, `professors of common law’ are inculcating the belief it is all about the acquistion of power and using it, inclsuive of suing the law to do so.That is a lamentable and disgusting degeneration of the law schools .
Merit must be subject to two specifying conditions:
1.The nominees are learned in common law;
2.Barristers considered for the bench must demonstrate both learning and a record as a Barrister for being distinguished in common law;
Judges considered for promotion must show they are distinguished in common law.
Naturally, those two conditions would disqualify many but, so what. the bench does not exist to provide pleasant careerahs for any, it is their to ensure freedom as advanced and buttressed by common law, and thus they are its servants, and decreasing numbers these days are fit for that grave and demanding task. That is the bottom line, on the test of common law, increasing numbers are not fit for judicial appointments and should be shut out altogether from appointments because, those men and women will just as surely contribute to the overthrow of common law as much as the polticians of the major parties are doing now. They can do as much damage as second -raters, even more because they are first-rate abiltity, and just as much or more damage as those whose appointments reduce to political correctness.
The explanation is sensible,seemingly reasonable jduge, uncompromiosed by sectional interests and political correctness, might seem reasonable and an excellent Judge when, in fact they are at bottom the ductile servants of absolutism hwo use their courts to assert and reinforce the expression of absolutism, `regulation’. The second thing, capricious morals come into play, and that is already in evidnece in too many cases already. Increasing numbers of judges are doing notjiong but parrot the false jsutification for absolutism, it is about ensuring higher morality prevails. In other words, they are already disposed epistemologically to compromisoing and overthrowing common law, the one great tradition of law which has actually served freedom. Such Judges are not fit to hold their appointments and should remove themseves from the benches, and no one appointed who is nothing but the same. SUch men and women do not grace the law, the corrode it, they bastardise it then finish it off completely. It is just such types, I might add, totalitarain regimes rely on, as studying the judiciary under the regimes Nazi and USSR amplifies, and what was done to those judges who refused to compromise the rule of law, unlike far too many now in Oz who are not learned but totally ignorant, effectively:
They are ignorant men and women, not scholars and ladies and gentlemen because, they are grossly ignorant of the one thing which counts, common law.
Anyway, here’s Flint’s column:
David Flint: High Court judges should be appointed on merit, not trendy notions
July 29, 2005
Here’s a gasser: James McConvill argues for exactly what one attacked above. McConvill damns himslef further by declaring what a wunnerful invention it is that, for example,
the High Court decided that the Commonwealth could impose income taxes
Spiffing, absolutely spiffing, that is, the official judicial grand imprimitur to wholesale property theft by the politicians.
McConvill’s leftoid dreams show it in this, he wants the high court stuffed with leftoid sookie bastards. He goes further, he considers Biggles to be just the man for the High Court, for McConvill, claims, Evans would usher in a new dawn of lightness and sweetness. Funny that,wannabe dictators also proclaim loudly in public how absolutly nice they are when they are frist rate criminal scumbags.
Mike Jericho however, has the right task for Biggles, he can fly a one man suicide mission to find out whether the aliens stationed off earth are really, really, wringing wet socialist sookies or mad as hell hordes of the Attila the Hun type hordes just waiting to pulverise all below. An old rocket could, no doubt be found and fitted with twin gattling guns and, Biggles can whoosh off to face the aliens.. that would be a happy lurve fest McConvill would wet himself with joy over,
MCConvill: `Gosh, Evans, you are so, so cool, nice , the Aliens, why, they will just cuddle right up to you.’
Next morning, , the day after Biggles flew his mission, McConvill is a feeling unwell, Biggles had crashed and burn when an alien ship fried his 1960s v.w. model capsule into tiny crumbly toasty bits.
James McConvill: Put Gareth Evans on a jet straight back to Canberra
Oh well, McConvill is almost right `Put Gareth Evans on a jet straight…’ , he just got the direction wrong.
