tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14608966.post4272113470297772586..comments2024-03-24T00:22:04.029+11:00Comments on armagnac'd: One solitary judicial conservativeArmagnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05430006925445661524noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14608966.post-36134878227366176352006-11-20T21:05:00.000+11:002006-11-20T21:05:00.000+11:00Now that you have had the opportunity to read and ...Now that you have had the opportunity to read and digest Kirby's decision in full do you still take the critical view of him that you took when reading at first blush?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14608966.post-9533593326624467302006-11-17T13:35:00.000+11:002006-11-17T13:35:00.000+11:00It's interesting, but not that surprising. You sa...It's interesting, but not that surprising. You saw similar things in federalism cases in the 1980s - the section 90 cases for example where Murphy J on the left and Dawson J on the right were the strongest dissenters and defenders of federalism.<br /><br />Callinan and Kirby have had quite a number of dissents together now.<br /><br />I think david j makes a good point re centralisation.<br /><br />I think Howard is very much a pro-centralisation big-government sort of 'conservative'. Conservatives who aren't of that persuasion should be worried - and no doubt will be next time a federal labor government is elected with the increased powers Howard and the High Court have provided.David Jefferyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11826563619710355534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14608966.post-17122287549436026212006-11-15T06:29:00.000+11:002006-11-15T06:29:00.000+11:00Of interest is that the government have effectivel...Of interest is that the government have effectively covered the vast majority of Australian workers with the IR reforms now. On first look, this decision covers only those employed by a company incorporated within Australia, leaving out those working for other company structures, as well as employees of the states. However, the majority of former have already had their protection removed. How soon for the latter?<br /><br />Of course, this is all a layman's point of view.Boysenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11885757182576294587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14608966.post-87058292653651358482006-11-15T00:13:00.000+11:002006-11-15T00:13:00.000+11:00I was at a seminar that Humphrey McQueen gave at t...I was at a seminar that Humphrey McQueen gave at the Brisbane Social Forum last year.<br /><br />He talked about how to understand decisions of the High Court, in the context of the common assumption that to centralise is Left or radical, and to decentralise is Right or conservative.<br /><br />He pointed out that sometimes that is not true. Sometimes it is in the interests of the ruling class to centralise, and sometimes not.<br /><br />In this case, the ruling class wants to centralise, because that will make it easier to cut wages, so the judges have gone along, apart from the recalcitrant Callinan. <br /><br />I suppose that is why there are 7 judges and not one on the High Court. Helps to isolate those who take theory more seriously than class interests.David Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01594699576390357505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14608966.post-23664086922339482472006-11-14T21:46:00.000+11:002006-11-14T21:46:00.000+11:00Interesting, isn't it? I respect Callinan J for re...Interesting, isn't it? I respect Callinan J for remaining true to his principles. More than I ever did previously. It's all about moral consistency.Legal Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01096038577529334966noreply@blogger.com