Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Government should have been more on the ‘front foot’ in dealing with High Court ruling" video.

No you are wrong. Firstly the judiciary should never be voted in as expert legal advice requires legal training, hence judges are appointed on merit not popularity. Secondly our constitution is founded on the principle of the separation of powers, this ensures that the legal political power are not combined. Lastly judges are not appointed for life, they have retirement ages.
1
@mikem9001 You can’t be seriously suggesting that the US court system is better than here? Where appointments are for life which you specifically argued against. Give me an explicit example of a an Australian judge in any court who was not chosen on merit? A 6 to 1 ruling is not a debacle by the High Court. The concept that you could detain someone indefinitely without judicial review is what was a debacle. Having served their gaol sentence that is their punishment finished. I’m not sure you understand the principles of justice.
1
@mikem9001 So you can’t provide any examples of your claim. I would suggest all the judges on the high court were chosen by merit. Would you like me to provide you the resume of one of them. There was no change to the law. The High court determined the Migration Act 1958 in relation to indefinite detention was unconstitutional without judicial oversight. You are just factually wrong on virtually every comment you have made.
1
No I’m reasonably sure their job is to interpret Australian law. It is up to the parliament to legislate appropriate laws for our safety and well being. Don’t blame the judiciary for parliament’s failures.
1