Non Footy Chat Thread II

[strider]

I found this interesting. Looks like he with his current stance will only be able to play in half of the grand slams.

Novak Djokovic is out of the Australian Open. But what about the other grand slams?

If Novak Djokovic remains unvaccinated, will he face similar hurdles at the year’s other grand slam events? Here is what to know about the policies in place for the other major tournaments, and how Djokovic might be affected.

www.smh.com.au

Well Macron is going to shit on him, or whatever the f**k he said recently.

Boris wouldn't know if his pants are on fire, so its a lottery there.

Lets go Brandon won't remember what tennis is, so he will just do what the person in his ear tells him - maaannn!! ... he will play in the US Open, they have have too many people on each side of the fence - unless whoever is in charge of NY at the time is gonna get real game and ban him

 

[Avenger]

I thought the first hearing was 50/50 and we were in agreement it’d be very difficult to overturn the second. Again, I don’t see how this provides any evidence of a far superior knowledge of legal process.

I wasn’t discussing this with you. I think it was @Noise. Are you now his forum representative?

 

[Bandwagon]

If he didn’t make that naive social media post where he said he had a medical exemption and was coming he wouldn’t have whipped up a hateful public. What he should have done is come here like a thief in the night like Nadal who hadn’t isolated the full amount of time and just landed here with COVID. He made sure he didn’t cough though when passing immigration.

Pretty much I reckon, no song and dance, no clown show.

 

[Avenger]

Anyway one proud Australian battler called Aleksandar Vukić just won the first game in the AO and everyone in the crowd cheered for him.

 

[Avenger]

Pretty much I reckon, no song and dance, no clown show.

Like.

Thanks @Twizzle

 

[Gronk]

None of that disputes what I previously said but you still didn’t answer my question.

I'm a firm believer in the separation of powers and that the judiciary should hold the executive to account.

As they say in the halls of english common law ...

Checks and balances are a critical protection to ensure the law is supreme and those in power are subject to the law and do not have excessive, unbridled power.

Yes, minister should have the power to approve or veto, however in this instance it would appear that the Minister is somewhat untouchable when he exercises his powers, short of seeking leave to appeal in the High Court.

 

[Avenger]

I'm a firm believer in the separation of powers and that the judiciary should hold the executive to account.

As they say in the halls of english common law ...

Checks and balances are a critical protection to ensure the law is supreme and those in power are subject to the law and do not have excessive, unbridled power.

Yes, minister should have the power to approve or veto, however in this instance it would appear that the Minister is somewhat untouchable when he exercises his powers, short of seeking leave to appeal in the High Court.

So the law/section/power that ultimately deported Djoković is what Gronk?

Fair?
Just?

Or unfair as it does not prove really anything because all it proves is that the lawfulness of the minister’s decision was correct rather than if it was the correct decision.

Meaning they used an exclusive personal power to deport him rather than anything to do with being reasonable or just.

 

[Gronk]

Well Macron is going to shit on him, or whatever the f**k he said recently.

Boris wouldn't know if his pants are on fire, so its a lottery there.

Lets go Brandon won't remember what tennis is, so he will just do what the person in his ear tells him - maaannn!! ... he will play in the US Open, they have have too many people on each side of the fence - unless whoever is in charge of NY at the time is gonna get real game and ban him

 

[Avenger]

And to suggest that some Aussie citizen out there would be impacted on his decision making on whether to get the booster shot if Novak stayed is f**king more laughable than any of my ramblings.

That’s what was a part of the minister’s reasoning which was not and cannot be objectively tested during yesterdays proceedings.

 

[Avenger]

That doesn’t include the players participating, tweety.

 

[Happy MEel]

I wasn’t discussing this with you. I think it was @Noise. Are you now his forum representative?

We’ve been having this discussion for a few days (see below), but I’m happy to leave it here and move on.

You are only calling me that because your arrogance will not allow your ignorance to the facts of this case to be revealed.

 

[Avenger]

We’ve been having this discussion for a few days, but I’m happy to leave it here and move on.

The facts of the case. Not the f**king verdict. Let’s wait for the summing up of the 3 federal court judges before you do your load.

 

[strider]

And to suggest that some Aussie citizen out there would be impacted on his decision making on whether to get the booster shot if Novak stayed is f**king more laughable than any of my ramblings.

That’s what was a part of the minister’s reasoning which was not and cannot be objectively tested during yesterdays proceedings.

so they banged on endlessly about it yesterday - as a means of saying it was an irrational reason to do what the minister said he was doing.

so why is it irrelevant to yesterday's outcome? ...... did they proceed with a full day hearing, predominantly taken up by discussion of this exact point for no f**kin reason what-so-ever?

 

[Gronk]

So the law/section/power that ultimately deported Djoković is what Gronk?

Fair?
Just?

Or unfair as it does not prove really anything because all it proves is that the lawfulness of the minister’s decision was correct rather than if it was the correct decision.

Meaning they used an exclusive personal power to deport him rather than anything to do with being reasonable or just.

It's the same unfair that hundreds of others have endured by this government enforcing their "strong borders" under the Immigration Act.

As for the Joker matter heard yesterday, the full bench only adjudicated on the Minister's right to cancel his visa. Not if the was correct at law to do so.

Do I think it's fair ? I think that the situation was handled poorly, however there is contributory negligence from both sides. So if I can use a baseball analogy, Joker does not get a walk to first base.

 

[Avenger]

so they banged on endlessly about it yesterday - as a means of saying it was an irrational reason to do what the minister said he was doing.

so why is it irrelevant to yesterday's outcome? ...... did they proceed with a full day hearing, predominantly taken up by discussion of this exact point for no f**kin reason what-so-ever?

Basically yes. His defence team tried to draw a long bow and say that the minster’s reasoning was irrational but under this law he only had to prove that it was a view point not necessarily a subjective and correct one.

Like I said, the summing up is important and sometimes these laws are changed in the High Court.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

so they banged on endlessly about it yesterday - as a means of saying it was an irrational reason to do what the minister said he was doing.

so why is it irrelevant to yesterday's outcome? ...... did they proceed with a full day hearing, predominantly taken up by discussion of this exact point for no f**kin reason what-so-ever?

they were rolling the dice on a bet with with an extremely small chance of success (but when you are well-resourced you can roll such dice). The bar for establishing that a decision was irrational is pretty high. My estimation is that you would need a demonstrated error of logic to do so. E.g. if the Minister said '1. All cats are black, 2. Fred is black, 3. Therefore Fred is a cat', that would be demonstrably irrational.

 

[84 Baby]

I'm a firm believer in the separation of powers and that the judiciary should hold the executive to account.

As they say in the halls of english common law ...

Checks and balances are a critical protection to ensure the law is supreme and those in power are subject to the law and do not have excessive, unbridled power.

Yes, minister should have the power to approve or veto, however in this instance it would appear that the Minister is somewhat untouchable when he exercises his powers, short of seeking leave to appeal in the High Court.

There’s still separation of powers. It’s not up to the judiciary system to determine when a minister should exercise his power or question valid reasons for using powers. They are in place to make sure there’s no invalid reasons (minisiculy small chance of that) and that used their power in the method they are allowed to.
The government requires these powers where the standard of dispute is more precise so that decisions affecting policy can be made speedier and more directly.
Whether they should have used that power can be determined by the electorate.
If power use is obscenely outside the public interest, then it’d be within the offending political party’s interests to rectify it.
And beyond that the Governor-General has their own powers.
There are several checks and balances but it most certainly should not be on the courts to decide policy.

 

[Gronk]

That doesn’t include the players participating, tweety.

No need to be nasty.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Hey @Avenger - Can’t remember if I have asked you this before. Did you ever live in Albany Close, Wakeley?

I used to live next door to a family that had two kids - Goran and Dragan. They would have been in their late teens when I was approx 9 or 10.

Pretty sure you aren’t a westy but thought I’d check.

 

[Avenger]

Hey @Avenger - Can’t remember if I have asked you this before. Did you ever live in Albany Close, Wakeley?

I used to live next door to a family that had two kids - Goran and Dragan. They would have been in their late teens when I was approx 9 or 10.

Pretty sure you aren’t a westy but thought I’d check.

No mate. I grew up in Carramar and Fairfield. I had a mate that lived in Hall Place near the old drive in.