“Who Makes the Law? Reining in the Supreme Court,” new report from The New Zealand Initiative Oxford University’s constitutional law professor, Richard Ekins KC, wrote the powerful foreword. The report finds our highest court straying beyond its rightful bounds, blurring the line between its primary job of settling disputes and Parliament’s law-making role. In the words of Professor Ekins, “The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence is liable to unsettle the balance of the constitution.”
Yes! And race-based policies and/or tikanga in: - state education and curriculum - health care priority and provision - corrections service, rehab, mental health, addiction treatment, psychology, expert witness - university curricula - industry bodies, registration, self-regulation - land use and land use change I could go on...
The report zeros in on two troubling trends. One is the Supreme Court’s loose approach to interpreting and applying laws passed by Parliament. The other is the Court’s reshaping of longstanding common law rules based on what the judges divine to be ‘changing social values’. The ‘three strikes’ case, Fitzgerald v R, illustrates the first problem. Despite clear statutory language requiring judges to impose maximum sentences for third-strike offences, in a majority decision, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the law to avoid what it saw as an unjust outcome. While the three strikes law was widely disliked, it was unquestionably Parliament’s prerogative to pass it. The Court should have applied it as written. Yet only one of the Supreme Court judges - Justice Young - showed the restraint needed to see it this way, and he has now retired from the bench. The Peter Ellis case exemplifies the second trend. Despite the case having no Māori connection, the Court considered tikanga Māori in deciding that Ellis’s appeal against convictions could continue after his death. Three judges went further, indicating that any issue of law before the courts may need to be addressed in the light of tikanga.
The judges are paid by the state to do the state biding. If they wish to overstep that then they should leave (or be sacked) and take up an advocacy role.
The Treaty Chiefs did not want the old evil tikanga to continue and they did not think maoris should start political movements or partys, I guess the radical maoris today don't honour the Chiefs
I assume we are allowed to protest or march against one judge, Pick one, make an example of him/her/them/that which would have to be pretty embarrassing for them/that/thingie - make an example of them to more of the public and perhaps make others think before doing stupid things.
This chaps response to an important proposition made by the interviewer is frightening to everybody who holds democracy dear to them. It's a thin line that separates democracy from anarchy and the breakdown of our society should that happen.
![สั่งทอง.. จาก temu ของจริงป่ะ? ( part : 1/2 ) [โกงไหมครับ ep.94 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2tYS1qTMB78/mqdefault.jpg)
If judges are going to be political let them get elected, no more sacred cows.
IN many cases they are in America. Ditto District Attorneys. ...
The entire civil service in New Zealand is badly in need of being reined in from their own agendas and over reach. It's increasingly doing huge harm.
You're opening comments are spot on Sean. It's not right. That's what we have parliament for. Power junkies.
Very pleased to see you take this on Sean, first class cobber, first class.
We need to increase the minimum punishment level so the judges can't go below it...... and give "people" punishment discounts.
If judges are going to dot this, then ministers can start commenting on judicial decisions.
Mission creep, and the direction is always the same way. Sedition?
“Who Makes the Law? Reining in the Supreme Court,” new report from The New Zealand Initiative
Oxford University’s constitutional law professor, Richard Ekins KC, wrote the powerful foreword.
The report finds our highest court straying beyond its rightful bounds, blurring the line between its primary job of settling disputes and Parliament’s law-making role. In the words of Professor Ekins, “The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence is liable to unsettle the balance of the constitution.”
Yes! And race-based policies and/or tikanga in:
- state education and curriculum
- health care priority and provision
- corrections service, rehab, mental health, addiction treatment, psychology, expert witness
- university curricula
- industry bodies, registration, self-regulation
- land use and land use change
I could go on...
Recalcitrance! And dear I say it deliberate sedition. Needs to be addressed as such IMO.
'Jewdicial Activism'🤘👹🖤
Bring back Judge Judy.
...also a jew 🤔
The report zeros in on two troubling trends.
One is the Supreme Court’s loose approach to interpreting and applying laws passed by Parliament.
The other is the Court’s reshaping of longstanding common law rules based on what the judges divine to be ‘changing social values’.
The ‘three strikes’ case, Fitzgerald v R, illustrates the first problem. Despite clear statutory language requiring judges to impose maximum sentences for third-strike offences, in a majority decision, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote the law to avoid what it saw as an unjust outcome. While the three strikes law was widely disliked, it was unquestionably Parliament’s prerogative to pass it. The Court should have applied it as written. Yet only one of the Supreme Court judges - Justice Young - showed the restraint needed to see it this way, and he has now retired from the bench.
The Peter Ellis case exemplifies the second trend. Despite the case having no Māori connection, the Court considered tikanga Māori in deciding that Ellis’s appeal against convictions could continue after his death. Three judges went further, indicating that any issue of law before the courts may need to be addressed in the light of tikanga.
The judges are paid by the state to do the state biding. If they wish to overstep that then they should leave (or be sacked) and take up an advocacy role.
The Treaty Chiefs did not want the old evil tikanga to continue and they did not think maoris should start political movements or partys, I guess the radical maoris today don't honour the Chiefs
The recent ACC debts due to payback duration is an example of the real impacts to our society
Victim Support- sean O'Dwyer- number 136- 140 Hobson Street.- Auckland City. 1010.- New zealand. // maha aotearoa.'
Let me me be the Judge...on second thoughts, maybe best not 😂
What exactly is there "Social Engineering".
I assume we are allowed to protest or march against one judge, Pick one, make an example of him/her/them/that which would have to be pretty embarrassing for them/that/thingie - make an example of them to more of the public and perhaps make others think before doing stupid things.
We should now be demanding that all judges be elected rather than gifted their jobs.
Except however that most voters choose people who sound good but don't always have much competence, like a recent PM.
This chaps response to an important proposition made by the interviewer is frightening to everybody who holds democracy dear to them. It's a thin line that separates democracy from anarchy and the breakdown of our society should that happen.
@@rod-contracts1616did Ardern & Hipkins have competence.?
This country from recent times has nothing whatsoever associated with democracy.🎉😂
The supreme definitely has ,
🤔🤨🥺😡🖕
Judges heads are getting too big for their wigs?
Utter dribble
How so ?
Especially if one has no idea what it all means.