society

By the people, for the people.

The latest farce in America where a federal high court judge has put an injunction on President Trumps travel ban seems to be a test of how much power the president has and also testing the power of the legal system. If this challenge to the presidents power is upheld in the courts this would make a high court judge in reality more powerful then the elected president of the United States. In Australia The federal court enacted what was called the "Mabo decision" which effectively recognized native title claims over the whole of Australia. This was never voted on in any election but the federal parliament rushed to pass legislation to cover what was essentially a high court decision over Eddie Mabo's sweet potato patch which had been in is family for generations. But because Eddie had moved to Townsville for work and no longer resided in the Torres Straights his family's sweet potato patch was being used by another family. All the legal work was being conducted Pro Bono by The James Cook University's legal facility. and went from a dispute over who owned an acre of sweet potato's in the Torres Straight to effectively throw into question the actual legality of Australia as a country. Like Dick the butchers line in Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part2, Act IV, Scene 2."The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". I don't mean literally but I think there power should be curtailed. throwing into question a whole country's legitimacy is really damaging to the rule of law. I.E. it might force people to act outside the law to protect there way of life some judge has thrown into jeopardy with the stroke of a pen.

posted to society by Dana, Carpenter of Imagination (2 comments)


Max, Necromancer of Imagination,

I would agree for the most part. Law is the only trade literally founded by a bunch of dudes pulling long legalisms out of their asses. But for anything within a thousand miles of democracy to work, the preponderance of lawyers in parliament is just the first half the problem. It would be equally bad to replace them with a majority of business people or doctors, or physicists, or actors, or baking show enthusiasts. What we really need is variety, and a big implication of that is coming to an internal understanding with disagreement. To paraphrase some long-dead philosopher: I may never agree with what you say, sir, but I will defend your right to say it unto death itself. Anger ain't the answer. And that is the hardest truth any of us will ever have to accept before things start getting better.

Rook, Crusader of Justice,

keep your powder dry