No, No, not the humanity issue these folk have been able to get reversed a judgment that says they should not be let in.
What are the implications for this country.
Who makes the law courts or Parliament?

According to the International Covention on Refugees and its implicable law all countries adherent to that Convention are under obligation to receive and process refugees to the best of their ability. It appears that the High Court is upholding that Convention to which Australia is a signatory.

As an example after World War II there were millions of refugees in Germany who had to be processed and assigned to various countries to be accepted by those countries according to their quotas. There is no difference between that situation and the current situation in our region. It does not mean that all these refugees will remain in Australia but maybe assigned to countries that are willing to accept them as has been the case to date.

It is unfortunate that the politicians have chosen to make an issue of boat people instead of undertaking their responsibility under the
International Convention of Refugees. There will always be refugee problems as long as wars, famine, climatic conditions exist.

When politicians are governed by their own interests and fail to abide by international agreements a higher authority has the responsibility to guide them in the right direction.

I may be wrong, I get my view from the print media, not always right.
But I thought the action was over some who had been rejected already.
If that is the case laws will be changed in Parliament.
Complex issue, many from all sides of politics are never pleased with judges over ruling existing law, in fact interpreting it differently is more like it.
We all surely want bad laws challenged and good ones upheld.
What costs are involved if this continues?
Like it or not we have a problem that is shared by the western world, people looking for a better life, safer, one it will continue to be a problem.

A recent Editorial by New Matilda, 11 November 2010, "A Fair Go in The Courts," had this to say: "This paves the way for all refugees to have access to a legal appeal. Previously only those who arrived by plane had that right. Now the High Court can make the final decision rather than a Minister who may be swayed by political opinion and an outsourced review provider who relies on the government to renew their contract. This judgement serves as a powerful reminder of the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy."

A reader wrote to The Age, "What the High Court managed to do was to defeat the tyranny of the majority in support of these loathed and faceless people who have been dehumanised to the point of non-recognition. Their victory stands as an historic warning to us all that the furtherance of basic human rights shall not be severed from the true spirit of our Australian democracy."

"There is no difference between that situation and the current situation in our region"
Actually there is; back then our intake were moderate-leaning people from civilized, moderate countries fleeing a tyrannical occupying militant power (dictator regimes).
These days, our intake (although primarily still level-headed people), now includes absolutely violent, tribalistic and fundamentally religious people who, in past cases, have remained extremely hostile towards the host population that took them in.

So long as we judge case-by-case to weed out the second group from the first to be deported while the rest are processed in the community, I believe most Australians would be completely fine with.
That way, we ensure our intake weeds out the violent cut-throat shariah-leaning people that I imagine most Australians supporting boat policy want to keep out, without getting the (non-Tiger) Sri Lankan, Tamil, and also Papuan/Pacific and Moderate Muslim refugees stuck along with them.
I imagine this would get a lot of support, but of course I am sensible enough to actually ask everyone else who is opposed to refugee policy if they agree with me.

I love this quote:
"Their victory stands as an historic warning to us all that the furtherance of basic human rights shall not be severed from the true spirit of our Australian democracy."
ie- in the spirit that Australia isn't actually that democratic at all. It's a case of might-makes-right by the strongest lobbying or administrative body calling the shots.

In the event of an appeal the High Court will determine who will be given refugee status. We can only presume that with due process the
applicants will be thoroughly investigated and unsuitable applicants, rejected. No government can completely guarantee the social suitability of any prospective migrants or refugees. All it can do is ensure that applicants are aware of the laws of the country by which all are expected to abide.