Well it appears that Davie Flint appears to believe 'activist judiciaries' are Leftist while those on the conservative side are more accepting of the traditional discipline inherent in the exercise of the judicial power.

This is what Brian Horrigan said back in 8 October 2003
"Labelling judges as undemocratic activists is sometimes just code for governmental dissatisfaction with inconvenient judicial outcomes, especially in politically sensitive areas like native title and immigration detention. Incoming Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock must now defend courts which he and other Howard government ministers have accused of activism".
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=774

Now which side of politics does Davie Flint belong to?

Numbat, I'm sure our Queen is well aware that if she were to congratulate the Australian cricket team there would be howls of outrage from parochial Australians who would prefer that she were not our Queen.

Elizabeth II is, by the way, not the Queen of England. She is the Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of Papua New Guinea, the Queen of Belize, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but not the Queen of England.

Ian: Technically you are correct the queen is not the queen of England. Yet she is elizabeth the second, that is the second elizabeth of, you've guessed it, England. She is however the first elizabeth of all the other countries you mentioned. But her title is elizabeth the second - strange that eh? numbat

Yes, Numbat, the numbering system is a little ironic, but I like irony, and it helps preserve a sense of continuity with our past.

Our Queen is called Elizabeth the Second, yet not one of the political units of which she is queen existed when Elizabeth the First was around. She is the first Elizabeth to be queen of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but she is also the first Elizabeth of the United Kingdom.

The pity of it is that some Australians still feel that bizarre sense of inferiority that used to be called the cultural cringe, and want to become a parochial little republic and pretend that we have no history. Very sad.

Reference for the High Court: It is ultimately ridiculous not to consider the merits of judges being selected, and utterly wreakless to poke consternation at the mentally handicapped or the criminal spheres, when making reference to this example.

I argue it is the under-represented minority everywhere who demand a test of validity on the expectations of the court. That it is impertive, that all Court Judges have the capacity to discern sound reasonable sense at the bench. In reference to choosing representatives, I don't want to see the courts restricted or intimidated by a lack of knowledge when it comes to interpreting the most challenging calls.

After seeing on SBS 5 30 pm (?)news - the process of appointing Mr Roberts QC, I understand how it can be explained that the US has a " a respected independent judiciary that invites its Senators to give approval of its Supreme Court appointments.

For the record, I felt there is a lot of merrit in this US process, and that during the interviews with the Senators, there is a justified focus in flushing out contenious issues, a pro-active kind of excavation between the boundries, be they seen as suggogate or not, they are based on problemic case areas relevant to the public interest through the particular Senators. I believed the process is adventitious because it allows you to see what you might expect from the highest office, through the person being choosen for representing a countries law.

I got a lot out the US Senators target questions. I understood much about their position and this helped me consider the quality of the man whom they finally appointed, regardless of the differences in politcal adherence.

Frankly, if you ask me, I say we need a combination of the US and British systems in Australia, that perhaps both systems have part of what we want.

Merit should be retained as the sole criteria for appointment to the High Court. In no sense has the High Court ever been considered representative. After all, the majority 'female' population of Australia has been represented by no more than 2 female High Court Justices in its 103 year history.

I also agree that the 1977 Constitutional Amendment setting a retirement age of 70 for High Court judges was unnecessary. Consider that the average age to seek admission to the bar now is 36 in NSW, with many brilliant individuals in various fields not seeking admission until well into their 50's. Furthermore, as medical treatments improve, good health increases and society lives longer. How long until people live until they are 120, and this age requirement will be revised?

It is also interesting to note that in any other position not Constitutionally entrenched, to force people to retire at a certain age without considering their capacity and skill to do their job would be considered Ageism, discriminatory and a breach of Federal Anti-Discrimination laws.