Australian Politics Forum - American Supreme Court is better ....

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 58239 Here Gender:	Re: American Supreme Court is better .... Reply #255 - Oct 29^th, 2017 at 7:39pm Quote: : American Supreme Court is better .... Than soggy toast ?
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #256 - Oct 30^th, 2017 at 4:55pm

Dnarever wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 7:36pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:29am:

No one is saying anything like that, Bobby. But the law is the law and it has to be followed. All it will change is that now, all MPs and candidates will need to be more thorough in their backgrounds to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Listen you halfwit - the law can be interpreted to mean
what the original writers wanted it to mean.
You still don't understand that after 17 pages.

There is no hope for you Longy.

Quote:

is a subject or a citizen

What part of "a citizen" can be interpreted any other way ? There is no if's or but's no excuses nothing. If you are a citizen of another country you are not entitled to stand for office in Australia. There is no other possible way to interpret it.

what the original writers wanted it to mean.

That is exactly how it was interpreted, the intention was that anyone with dual citizenship was not allowed to stand. The onus was on Barnaby and the others to not sign their declaration until they checked. There is plenty of warnings and advice in the material that goes with the application.

In my view by far the worst thing that Barnaby did was in refusing to stand aside and taking a vexatious claim to the high court. He cost us millions and showed a lack of integrity.

He was hardly alone. There were 6 others looked at and there is reason to beleive there are others that are hiding their citizenship problems. This has been going on for a century but no one took too much notice nor is there any reason to beleive that any MP has ever acted in favour of a foreign power. So there has been no harm. However, it is the rule and needs to be followed, but lets not think for a minute that Barnaby is alone. There are HUNDREDS over the past few decades in the same situation.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58239
Here
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #257 - Oct 30^th, 2017 at 7:23pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 4:55pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 7:36pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 8:29am:

No one is saying anything like that, Bobby. But the law is the law and it has to be followed. All it will change is that now, all MPs and candidates will need to be more thorough in their backgrounds to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Listen you halfwit - the law can be interpreted to mean
what the original writers wanted it to mean.
You still don't understand that after 17 pages.

There is no hope for you Longy.

Quote:

is a subject or a citizen

What part of "a citizen" can be interpreted any other way ? There is no if's or but's no excuses nothing. If you are a citizen of another country you are not entitled to stand for office in Australia. There is no other possible way to interpret it.

what the original writers wanted it to mean.

That is exactly how it was interpreted, the intention was that anyone with dual citizenship was not allowed to stand. The onus was on Barnaby and the others to not sign their declaration until they checked. There is plenty of warnings and advice in the material that goes with the application.

In my view by far the worst thing that Barnaby did was in refusing to stand aside and taking a vexatious claim to the high court. He cost us millions and showed a lack of integrity.

He was hardly alone. There were 6 others looked at and there is reason to beleive there are others that are hiding their citizenship problems. This has been going on for a century but no one took too much notice nor is there any reason to beleive that any MP has ever acted in favour of a foreign power. So there has been no harm. However, it is the rule and needs to be followed, but lets not think for a minute that Barnaby is alone. There are HUNDREDS over the past few decades in the same situation.

I think you will find that most of the others were invited along for the ride many had already stood aside but you are correct about a few of them.

Back to top

IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #258 - Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:23am

Bobby. wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 3:01pm:

Panther wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

On a personal note I cant believe, for the life of me, IMHO, I can't believe the original intent of this law was to protect Australia from this kind of Dual-Citizenship. There is no conflict of interests, if the Citizenship holder has no knowledge of it, & was a natural born Australian Citizen himself, & has no interest in New Zealand that he could affect.

The law is crazy and the High Court were dogmatic
as though that law was from God or some other higher power.

The High Court has to be dogmatic. This is the constitution we are talking about. Although it is not from god it is the most sacrosanct document in our country.

What you seem to be advocating is allowing the High Court to change the constitution without a referendum from the people. That is a dangerous path to follow and one that the Australian people will not allow.

Back to top

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 103428
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #259 - Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 5:54am

Raven wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:23am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 3:01pm:

Panther wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

On a personal note I cant believe, for the life of me, IMHO, I can't believe the original intent of this law was to protect Australia from this kind of Dual-Citizenship. There is no conflict of interests, if the Citizenship holder has no knowledge of it, & was a natural born Australian Citizen himself, & has no interest in New Zealand that he could affect.

The law is crazy and the High Court were dogmatic
as though that law was from God or some other higher power.

The High Court has to be dogmatic. This is the constitution we are talking about. Although it is not from god it is the most sacrosanct document in our country.

What you seem to be advocating is allowing the High Court to change the constitution without a referendum from the people. That is a dangerous path to follow and one that the Australian people will not allow.

The High Court could just have interpreted "foreign power"
with a new definition that didn't include England or NZ.
After all we all have the same Queen ruling over us.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #260 - Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 7:47am

Bobby. wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 5:54am:

Raven wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:23am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 3:01pm:

Panther wrote on Oct 28^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

On a personal note I cant believe, for the life of me, IMHO, I can't believe the original intent of this law was to protect Australia from this kind of Dual-Citizenship. There is no conflict of interests, if the Citizenship holder has no knowledge of it, & was a natural born Australian Citizen himself, & has no interest in New Zealand that he could affect.

The law is crazy and the High Court were dogmatic
as though that law was from God or some other higher power.

The High Court has to be dogmatic. This is the constitution we are talking about. Although it is not from god it is the most sacrosanct document in our country.

What you seem to be advocating is allowing the High Court to change the constitution without a referendum from the people. That is a dangerous path to follow and one that the Australian people will not allow.

The High Court could just have interpreted "foreign power"
with a new definition that didn't include England or NZ.
After all we all have the same Queen ruling over us.

'interpret' is not the same as 'make it up to suit you'.

the High Court were correct in their decision and there was never going to be any other outcome.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 103428 Melbourne Gender:	Re: American Supreme Court is better .... Reply #261 - Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:19pm longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 7:47am: 'interpret' is not the same as 'make it up to suit you'. the High Court were correct in their decision and there was never going to be any other outcome. Longy - the High Court should act in our best interests - not in the interests of dogmatism.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #262 - Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:40pm

Bobby. wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 7:47am:

'interpret' is not the same as 'make it up to suit you'.

the High Court were correct in their decision and there was never going to be any other outcome.

Longy - the High Court should act in our best interests -
not in the interests of dogmatism.

and what does 'our best interests' mean, boobish-one? IT IS SUBJECTIVE and meaningless. 'our best interests' could mean to strip aboriginals of human rights. It could be making homosexuality illegal. It could mean making church attendance mandatory. it depends on who is on the bench and how they feel on the day and their personal opinion.

The court is there to rule on the constitution, not some subjective rubbish like 'in our best interests'.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 103428
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #263 - Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:21am

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 7:47am:

'interpret' is not the same as 'make it up to suit you'.

the High Court were correct in their decision and there was never going to be any other outcome.

Longy - the High Court should act in our best interests -
not in the interests of dogmatism.

and what does 'our best interests' mean, boobish-one? IT IS SUBJECTIVE and meaningless. 'our best interests' could mean to strip aboriginals of human rights. It could be making homosexuality illegal. It could mean making church attendance mandatory. it depends on who is on the bench and how they feel on the day and their personal opinion.

The court is there to rule on the constitution, not some subjective rubbish like 'in our best interests'.

Longy,
there was no evidence that any of the aforesaid politicians
were in any way compromising Australia's interests for those
of a foreign country.
The fact is that they definitely weren't and therefore
the judges acted by following the letter of the law
with no regard to the actual circumstances.

It is obviously in our best interests to have a stable Govt.
and so the pollys should have been allowed to continue in their
positions as long as they rescinded their dual nationality.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #264 - Nov 4^th, 2017 at 4:33pm

Bobby. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:21am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 2:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2017 at 7:47am:

'interpret' is not the same as 'make it up to suit you'.

the High Court were correct in their decision and there was never going to be any other outcome.

Longy - the High Court should act in our best interests -
not in the interests of dogmatism.

and what does 'our best interests' mean, boobish-one? IT IS SUBJECTIVE and meaningless. 'our best interests' could mean to strip aboriginals of human rights. It could be making homosexuality illegal. It could mean making church attendance mandatory. it depends on who is on the bench and how they feel on the day and their personal opinion.

The court is there to rule on the constitution, not some subjective rubbish like 'in our best interests'.

Longy,
there was no evidence that any of the aforesaid politicians
were in any way compromising Australia's interests for those
of a foreign country.
The fact is that they definitely weren't and therefore
the judges acted by following the letter of the law
with no regard to the actual circumstances.

It is obviously in our best interests to have a stable Govt.
and so the pollys should have been allowed to continue in their
positions as long as they rescinded their dual nationality.

You are an idiot. We have laws and a constitution for a reason. Reasons that clearly you are incapable of understanding. And here you are literally criticising a judge for following the law instead of 'his heart'

You are an idiot.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 103428
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #265 - Nov 4^th, 2017 at 5:39pm

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 4:33pm:

You are an idiot. We have laws and a constitution for a reason. Reasons that clearly you are incapable of understanding. And here you are literally criticising a judge for following the law instead of 'his heart'

You are an idiot.

dear Longy,
can you please refrain from ad hominem attacks?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #266 - Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:43pm

Bobby. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 4:33pm:

You are an idiot. We have laws and a constitution for a reason. Reasons that clearly you are incapable of understanding. And here you are literally criticising a judge for following the law instead of 'his heart'

You are an idiot.

dear Longy,
can you please refrain from ad hominem attacks?

Sure.. if you stop posting like a moron that deserves it.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 103428
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #267 - Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:43pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 4:33pm:

You are an idiot. We have laws and a constitution for a reason. Reasons that clearly you are incapable of understanding. And here you are literally criticising a judge for following the law instead of 'his heart'

You are an idiot.

dear Longy,
can you please refrain from ad hominem attacks?

Sure.. if you stop posting like a moron that deserves it.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

ad hominem

"You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong."

An ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is a personal attack. It is by far the most common logical fallacy encountered in online forums. It carries the assumption that by discrediting your opponent, you are also discrediting their argument. However, this would lead to the absurd situation that an argument is correct if one person uses it, and false if another uses it. Inexperienced debaters often fall for this and feel the need to defend their reputation against a troll, otherwise it will invalidate the point they are trying to make in the eyes of others.

An ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy. For example, if someone claims that their point of view on a technical issue carries more weight because they are a scientist then it would be reasonable to point out that they did not complete their PhD. It would not be reasonable to point out that they are divorced, or a socialist.

Merely insulting someone is not technically an ad hominem unless it is done in a way that discredits their argument – however, it is still inappropriate.

The opposite fallacy to ad hominem is ‘appeal to authority,’ claiming that the good qualities of a person making an argument support that argument.

Back to top

IP Logged

Secret Wars

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3928
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #268 - Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:50pm

Bobby. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:43pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 4:33pm:

You are an idiot. We have laws and a constitution for a reason. Reasons that clearly you are incapable of understanding. And here you are literally criticising a judge for following the law instead of 'his heart'

You are an idiot.

dear Longy,
can you please refrain from ad hominem attacks?

Sure.. if you stop posting like a moron that deserves it.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

ad hominem

"You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong."

An ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is a personal attack. It is by far the most common logical fallacy encountered in online forums. It carries the assumption that by discrediting your opponent, you are also discrediting their argument. However, this would lead to the absurd situation that an argument is correct if one person uses it, and false if another uses it. Inexperienced debaters often fall for this and feel the need to defend their reputation against a troll, otherwise it will invalidate the point they are trying to make in the eyes of others.

An ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy. For example, if someone claims that their point of view on a technical issue carries more weight because they are a scientist then it would be reasonable to point out that they did not complete their PhD. It would not be reasonable to point out that they are divorced, or a socialist.

Merely insulting someone is not technically an ad hominem unless it is done in a way that discredits their argument – however, it is still inappropriate.

The opposite fallacy to ad hominem is ‘appeal to authority,’ claiming that the good qualities of a person making an argument support that argument.

Exactly, Brian claims ad Hom almost constantly and I have only seen once when it was justified. He has been schooled before but he is too thick to understand.

And the idiot claims to be university educated? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 103428
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #269 - Nov 4^th, 2017 at 7:21pm

Secret Wars wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:50pm:

Exactly, Brian claims ad Hom almost constantly and I have only seen once when it was justified. He has been schooled before but he is too thick to understand.

And the idiot claims to be university educated? Grin

Almost every post Longy makes is an ad hominem attack.

He calls himself university educated too.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Is the USA Supreme Court better than our High Court?
* This poll has now closed *
Yes 6 (50.0%) No 6 (50.0%) I'm not sure - it's too complicated. 0 (0.0%) Total votes: 12 « Created by: Bobby. on: Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:15pm »