"When decisions are made by knee jerk populist politicians which are outside the Constitution, it is ultimately the responsibility of the High Court to demolish those unconstitutional laws and directives."

In the past Paul1405 has claimed allegiance with the Greens as I understand.

It sounds like Paul1405 is saying that both sides of politics are jerks, that create illegal laws. Maybe that could be true but I don't think that Paul1405's Green Alternative would be better.

Is this Paul1405 saying that populism (and democracy) is wrong? Democracy may be wrong but not for the same reasons as Green Paul1405.

I don't think that the reality of the relationship between Judges and Politicians and Laws is quite the same as what Paul1405 is painting.

Kudos Kid,

Why are you fixated with my opinions? Flattery will get you everywhere.

"In the past Paul1405 has claimed allegiance with the Greens as I understand." I'm yet to see you understand anything. I view myself as a liberal progressive socialists.

"that (politicians) create illegal laws" Obviously they do at times, that's why we have a High Court. p/s The do create so legal laws at times as well.

"Democracy may be wrong" Is that what you think, as an authoritarian you probably would think that way.

I want to spread Pixie Dust all over the Kudos Kid!

Does Christianity teach that its ok to turn a blind eye to sin when Israel does it?
Or are you just as fake as Macdonalds cheese ttbn?

CM,

The more ignorant among us often sneer at ‘populism’ as if it is a bad thing. But:

“Populism is a political approach that champions the "common person," usually by opposing a perceived corrupt or distant elite. It divides society into "the pure people" versus "the elite," often using nationalistic or anti-establishment rhetoric. Common examples include Donald Trump (USA), Brexit, and various European movements. Synonyms include grassroots, democratic (in a broad sense), and popular, often associated with anti-establishment, anti-elitist, and nationalist themes”.

Sounds OK to me, a “common person”

Fascism is populism. Fascism is centred on authoritarian and ultra nationalism, often promoting a violent ideology towards those perceived as disloyal and anti "the common people". It sees variance and difference, as disloyalty counter to the will of "the common people". It aims to destroy corrupt democratic institutions through the will of "the common people". Fascism believes in dividing society into the unjustly treated and disenfranchised "common people" and the controlling "corrupt elite" which are identified by both minorities of difference, and those within established institutions such as the courts, parliament, trade unions, political parties and organisations, religions, universities and schools. Fascism believes the present systems operating in society have been so corrupted by the elite that only a popular peoples revolution can right the terrible injustice, and establish a new order for the good of "the common people".

ttbn, as one of the "common people" do you agree with that? It certainly sounds like what you and a couple of other far right radicals espouse on this forum. Could Fascism be Trumpism and Hansonism by another name?

Another Spectator Australia contributor, Michael de Percy, ex-soldier, academic, member of the Press Gallery, truck driver and blogger, has something to say about activist judges. (‘Is the rule of law fit for purpose?’)

He asks if the law still serves the public interest, or has it been “subtly repurposed to shield those who undermine the very society it was meant to sustain”.

The bipartisan laws put up in NSW were a pragmatic response to public frustration. For years, the public has had routine pro-Palestine protests blocking streets and the bridge and straining police resources.

All for foreign activities occurring thousands of kilometres away that have nothing to do with Australia. We are not involved. Our problem is demonstrators, many of whom might not be Australian citizens.

The Minns government tried to do the right thing, and reacted to public concern; but the law was struck down by unelected, arrogant, activist judges. In the “shadow of terrorism”. And the New South Wales taxpayers could be facing not only the bill for the original legal defence, but also the cost of possible damage claims from those arrested under the now-invalid laws.

There are many instances of activist judges “frustrating the will” of elected representatives and the broader community.

The activist judges have blocked the government from deporting people who have no right to be here; they have caused unwanted criminals to be released from detention and put back on our streets. Curfews were banned. Ankle bracelets were removed.

The system of appointment of judges means that they are insulated from public scrutiny. That's part of the Westminster system which, perhaps, has had its day.

The author goes so far as to suggest that system has been turned into an instrument to advance “particular ideological ends”

He suggests that the system is not merely malfunctioning; its moral premises have been captured, at a time when society has become a “corrosive free-for-all”. It needs rebuilding.