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

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58233
Here
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #60 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 7:22am

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 6:44am:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 11:04pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

But Barnaby could lose his job

Barnaby never legally held his job and you would think that virtually every NZ'er would be aware of their citizenship requirements. Baaaarnaby's dad would have known that his son was a K1. Barnaby is a dill for not knowing if it is true.

Besides we have already had people lose their job this year under the same rule in the same position. In terms of the political repercussions - it is what it is. This may not be a bad thing. If they wanted they could probably put the next name on the list in place before the next sitting. If they wait it is more likely to cause a political crisis.

Whatever happens it is their own fault and remember both Baaarnaby and Turnbull went hard line on the Greens who were in this position. They were not going to cop any rubbish from people who were not legitimately elected back then. Turnbull labelled the whole greens party incompetent for letting it happen.

Guess he already knew that the coalition were all incompetent.

I spoke to many New Zealanders.
Not one of them knew about that obscure NZ law.

Almost every country including Australia have a similar obscure law that most of us know about.

Only Barnaby's father was born in New Zealand.
Barnaby was born in Australia -
he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie.

Quote:

Only Barnaby's father was born in New Zealand.
Barnaby was born in Australia -

"ONLY BAAAARNABY'S FATHER" That makes him half New Zealander"

You still don't get that place of birth is irrelevant to this rule. This is a very simple standard either you are a duel citizen or you are not. Baaarnaby is a duel citizen.

Baaarnaby ticked the box saying that he is not a fuel citizen thus falsifying his application to the AEC.

Anyone with a parent of any other nationality who ticks that box without checking is only getting what they deserve. In fact even in Water's case with two Australian parents she was caught out in a much worse case.

Waters not knowing is understandable Baaa Baaa Baaarnaby not knowing is just incompetent.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #61 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 9:22am

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 7:02pm:

Panther wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

I can't see what LW58 usually posts, that is unless someone quotes him. I'm still waiting for that to also be ignored....might have to light a fire on that.....but I can see LW's post because you quoted him....not your fault.

Bobby.... I really hate this more than you could ever realize. but I have to be truthful, & give credit where due regarding this matter.....

LW58 is correct in this matter.....

The US Supreme Court did not change, I repeat, did not change any law in their Roe v. Wade decision, they just interpreted the Constitution (the American Law of the Land....on which all lower laws must be based) that Women have the 'Right to Choose' an abortion as a matter of privacy based on the 14th Amendment's 'due process' provisions.

Personally, I think Abortion is Murder, & pray for the day this decision is revisited & reversed.

LW58 is rarely correct, but in this ever so rare case, he is spot on.

Yes Longy might be right:

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/the-australian-constitution/the-const...

Quote:

The High Court can invalidate any legislation or parts of legislation that it finds to be unconstitutional.

However - what about Barnaby Joyce?

of COURSE I am right. And Barnaby and others are having their cases referred to the High Court for assessment and judgement.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #62 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 9:26am

Dnarever wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 8:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

That NZ is a foreign power is just part of the deal, Bobby. There is also whether Joyce took all reasonable steps to renounce, and there are several aspects of that.

Aussie,
all I'm saying is that I now agree with your summation -
Joyce is going to get his arse kicked out.

It's crazy & it means that our High Court is inferior to the American Supreme Court.
The Yanks can change bad laws there - we can't here.

Why is it crazy it is only the same as applied to everyone else. I would think it would be crazy if an exception was made for one politician because of the party he belongs to.

We have had 2 previous disqualifications this year that were exactly the same, they both had the integrity to resign as had all before them.

They all resign because there is zero ambiguity in the rule and no scope for excuses.

The likely difference that the High Court MAY find is that these dual citizenships were unknown to the people and occured without their consent or knowledge. I dont know if it will make any difference, but the truth is in that all of these cases, the people were unaware and reasonably expected that they were no dual citizens.

The whole thing is a farce. And then we have one being investigated for taking a financial advantage from the commonwealth because he is part-owner of a shopping complex that has an aussie post franchise in it. Is that not beyond stupid and missing the point?

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

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 103329
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #63 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:36pm

Dnarever wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 7:15am:

he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie

- who happens to be a citizen of NZ.

By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ????

We shall see how good our High Court is.
I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement.

Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people does it
make the laws they voted for invalid?

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #64 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2017 at 10:03am:

The American Supreme court is better than our High court of Australia.

They can actually change the law!
see here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/10/justice/landmark-scotus-cases/index.html
15 Supreme Court cases that changed America.

We have a High Court that seems to only be allowed to interpret the law.

In the case of the laws around politicians like Barnaby Joyce
it seems that as his Father was a New Zealander,
that he might be kicked out of parliament even though
he didn't know that he had automatic NZ citizenship.

If we had a Supreme court like America they could change the law.
The law could then be a living document and change
as absurdities & needs arose.

We have a poor system that needs to be changed.

Hell no!

The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them.

Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President.

I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament.

That's how it should be.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: American Supreme Court is better .... Reply #65 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:46pm Also, the other issue with SCOTUS is that judges serve til they die or retire; there are no compulsory retirement ages. At least in Australia we amended the Constitution to provide for mandatory retirement at 70 years of age.
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: American Supreme Court is better .... Reply #66 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:47pm Bobby, did the article mention the Dred Scott case? Or Plessy vs. Ferguson?
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 103329
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #67 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:52pm

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Hell no!

The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them.

Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President.

I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament.

That's how it should be.

I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America.

He explained the Supreme Court so well.
I wish I could find the quote.
He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA
who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws
as it became necessary.
It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed.

Absurdities can arise -
I gave an example:

hypothetical -

President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens -
then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38534
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #68 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:56pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 7:15am:

he's a dinky die ridgy didge true blue fair dinkum Aussie

- who happens to be a citizen of NZ.

By the way So were all the others who had to resign, you think they should be recalled ????

We shall see how good our High Court is.
I wish they would hurry up & make a judgement.

Also - if the High Court chucks out all those people

does it
make the laws they voted for invalid?

No.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #69 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:58pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Hell no!

The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them.

Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President.

I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament.

That's how it should be.

I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America.

He explained the Supreme Court so well.
I wish I could find the quote.
He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA
who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws
as it became necessary.
It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed.

Absurdities can arise -
I gave an example:

hypothetical -

President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens -
then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution.

After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #70 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:04pm

Thomas Jefferson said the following (Aussie, listen well):

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #71 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:08pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Hell no!

The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them.

Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President.

I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament.

That's how it should be.

I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America.

He explained the Supreme Court so well.
I wish I could find the quote.
He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA
who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws
as it became necessary.
It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed.

Absurdities can arise -
I gave an example:

hypothetical -

President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens -
then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

why do you persist in repeating STUPID CRAP???? You've already had it explained to you that SCOTUS does not make law. Nor does it invalidate law with the singular exception of when it conflicts with an existing superior law or the constitution. It is the legal UMPIRE, not a law-maker.

Persisting in your stupidity does not improve your already poor record for being dumb.

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

Auggie Gold Member Offline The Bull Moose Posts: 8571	Re: American Supreme Court is better .... Reply #72 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:08pm Point of note: The ability of the President to return Bills (commonly known as the 'veto') was considered to be the mechanism by which unconstitutional or 'bad' bills would be rejected.
Back to top	The Progressive President IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #73 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:09pm

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:52pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 4:44pm:

Hell no!

The Supreme Court of the United States has completely exceeded its constitutional bounds. The judiciary's role is not to make laws; it's to interpret them.

Another complaint about the SCOTUS is that it basically acts as a permanent constitutional council - Woodrow Wilson pretty well said as much when he was President.

I much prefer the British system - the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty: the Parliament reigns supreme. The judiciary is independent but has power to overturn legislation passed by the Parliament.

That's how it should be.

I remember a TV series called Alistair Cooke's America.

He explained the Supreme Court so well.
I wish I could find the quote.
He had much praise for the founding Fathers of the USA
who foresaw the need for a court that would change laws
as it became necessary.
It was sort of a built in redundancy so that silly laws could be changed.

Absurdities can arise -
I gave an example:

hypothetical -

President Putin decides that all Australian politicians are automatically Russian citizens -
then by our law our whole Govt. would collapse over night.

Incorrect, the Founding Fathers of the US did not create a Supreme Court for that purpose; that was never the original intention. The court decision which started the tradition of Judicial Review was Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (???). This was the first decision in which the court struck down a law because it was repugnant to the Constitution.

After the decision, Thomas Jefferson was appalled by the Supreme's Court ruling. He stated that the function of the Court SHOULD NOT be to determine matters related to the Constitution because it was open to abuse.

not a lot of point in having a constitution if there is not a body that can uphold it. Russia and CHina all have constitutions that they regularly ignore simply because there is no one to uphold 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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: American Supreme Court is better ....
Reply #74 - Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:11pm

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:08pm:

Point of note:

The ability of the President to return Bills (commonly known as the 'veto') was considered to be the mechanism by which unconstitutional or 'bad' bills would be rejected.

so that assumes an obviously partisan and compromised person such as the President would naturally choose to do the 'right thing' all the time? To say nothing about a President needing to be a skilled constitutional lawyer and scholar.

such naievete

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

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 »