ANTiLAG
First Grade
- Messages
- 8,014
Ha. That is what you took from that CT?
Oh dear. I never said that I was important let alone powerful. I'm neither consider myself to be important or powerful. I'm not.
Yep, I'm bloody good at legal analysis, and proud of it. And don't sell me short, the Brits (UKSC & HL judgments, texts of Oxford & Cambridge employees) means a lot more than HCA, they are afterall meant to be the best of the best, although Australia in some areas of equity is more progressive and advanced. I've taken British legal minds to task as well.
Why the hell do you think questions of common law are reheard at apellate level, academics publish legal articles or post-grad students complete legal dissertations on specific cases if the highest judges are infallible? Just to weigh competing arguments in a modern context? If so, why not just write policy briefs or write legal commission reports in order to have more progressive legislation coded to advance the law?
To you it may seem like a wild, unmeritorious and arrogant claim, while those in the legal profession know its validity as a mere basic-starting-point-measure of required competence for conducting appellate or academic type work. That is commonly questions of law. Even conservative and highly analytical judges like Heydon JA, as he was before taking the High Court, are not infallible and could overlook the terra firma of their starting premise. And as for Kirby J, well, there are enough memes on the internet to let you know his standing. You cannot have that many dissents and not leave yourself exposed.
Legal argument is not a mathematical equation like you have regularly conducted in engineering. Judges smudge and smear their analysis often just to ensure a just outcome in a particular fact scenario. "Hard cases make bad law". In fact, some of the greatest judges in history have a poor track record in being upheld or widely standing up to scrutiny, the famous Lord Denning is a great example. Mere second year (first if a JD programme) law students accross the globe are famously taught some of his errors in law, and yet, he is held in the greatest esteem and admiration for the novel things he did that suceeded in developing a better and modern society in the UK, Aus, NZ, Canada, and many many more nations.
Sometimes judicial errors are in fact innocent oversights, and others are deliberate smudges or even possibly at the extreme knowingly illogical or incorrect interpretations of precedent or legislation to give effect most often to justice in a particular case or to give effect to their almost 'political' if not legal viewpoint; either to stagnate legal advancement they disagree with (either in the particular or as part of their jurist policy to be conservative that is to declare and not to create) or to set the course of law on a new and fairer direction: their view of the greater good.
Sometimes the weighing could be improved, and sometimes, just like everyone can - they may just f**k up, such is human nature. Never fear, common law judicial work is done with the best intentions for a just and better society and claims of self-interested bias are few and very far between. Good thing that there is a panel at appellate level. Judges universally cannot even agree whether they make law or whether they merely declare it. Read the HLA Hart v Dworkian debate for principle vs discretion debate at legal edges: not for the faint hearted. With all those grounds for possible disagreement, plus the law itself, and you think that judges are not infallible? My god, the rate at which concurring (agreeing but for different reasons) or dissenting judgments are delivered, should alone let you know that it is not 3 or 5 people determining whether 1+1 = 2!
Either your insecurity or ignorance of the way law works has lead you to misinterpret a rather innocuous statement. Such is the layman's paradise. Was it ever an appeal to authority? No, I'm not a public lawyer, nor am I a Judge, and nor did I even take a position. Never was it, "I've done this, thus my opinion is to be followed".
The quote was "personally, I don't have a set in stone position on politics. But I have ripped HCA judges and Oxford Law Professors to shreds through argument, so I say, persuade me that you are 'right'.
It was an invitation to debate and persuade a logical and intellectually curious mind of your position. You can try all the ad hominem you like. How can I be 'necessarily correct' when I did not even offer a position on politics or the topic??? I gave you assistance to refine your stance and/or correct your position on jurisprudence, politics, economics, argument techniques, legal rights, even utilitarianism ethics and offered to then give counter arguments once you had sorted out your argument on civil liberties. I gave you legal (Entick v Carrington and aftermath and other relevant legal theory debates), jurisprudential (Hohfieldian analysis) and political economy (politicalcompass.org) foundation to correct your past errors and to sort your mess of an argument out.
If you thought what I said was already arrogant about ripping Judges to shreds, you'd have a hard time swallowing my other 'points-of-pride'. Personally, I have not achieved anywhere near as much as I would have liked to thus far. And you think I'm crying foul with what I can and have done to HCA judges arguments? Judging by your recent posts, I don't think you wish to debate civil liberties at all, and just want to try and tear me down as a 'tall poppy'. Your insecurity was already manifest when you referred to science and engineering as real degrees and law not as one. Yet, I predict that if you ever make an alleged oversight with what factors to include with your mathematical equation and your former client sustains a loss, or your resulting product is faulty and causes loss, when you are served with a statement of claim, that you will call a lawyer before calling an expert witness engineer or scientist to check your equation.
This is not a political campaign. Be intellectual. Make your case and debate the topic or f**k off. I honestly do not give a sh*t which one you choose. I have given you a clean slate and will not dwell on your past errors in argument. Most would appreciate that intellectually generous gesture, you however, seem to think it is for some sinister reason on my part. Trust issues?
Last edited:
