The Australians are Mocking Us
[Posted by The Angry Clam]
It’s a serious reversal of fortune since the days of Crocodile Dundee, and its fault lies entirely with the Senate.
Key quotation:
When you contrast the bedlam unfolding over empty seats on the US highest court with the smooth, untroubled, barely noticed appointment last week of Susan Crennan to our own High Court, the lesson is clear. Why politicise our courts?
Also:
With no disrespect, Crennan’s appointment has already passed from newsprint to fish wrapping. And that is a very good thing. Why? Because in Australia, to the chagrin of many legal activists, most of our judges do not prance around as politicians in legal drag as they do in the US.
Heh.
Thank you Clam. I’ve linked to it at confirmthem.
Andrew (d20398) — 9/28/2005 @ 3:57 pmImages of Breyer in drag aren’t what I need right now.
Christopher Cross (d5669f) — 9/28/2005 @ 4:04 pmBlogicus Interrupticus
Today’s dose of NIF – News, Interesting & Funny … Hump Day edition
NIF (59ce3a) — 9/28/2005 @ 5:42 pmBig difference: in Oz, judges are appointed by the government, with no need for the consent of the senate, or of anyone else. If that were the case in the USA, the Roberts appointment would be old news by now. And Robert Bork would be getting ready to celebrate his 20th anniversary on the court.
Milhouse (fc9c48) — 9/29/2005 @ 12:52 amWell, considering that Australia uses a parliamentary system, how else would they do it?
Remember, the Prime Minister is the leader of the Parliament as well as the head of government- if he loses a vote, it’s election time for everyone, including those in his own party who voted against him. If the President loses a vote, life goes on for our senators.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 9/29/2005 @ 5:30 amThey could require the Senate’s consent, as the USA does. The government rarely has a majority in the Senate. As of 1-Jul this year, the gov’t did take control of the Senate, for the first time since 1-Jul-1981; but even now, all it would takes to defeat a nomination would be for one gov’t senator to cross the floor. And losing a nomination in the Senate wouldn’t bring the gov’t down, any more than losing any other vote does.
In any case, were the Senate to bring down the gov’t, that would only send the House to an election; the Senate would remain for the rest of its term, unless the PM had the trigger for a double dissolution, and the GG agreed to give him one.
For that matter, were nominations to be put to the House, losing one would not bring down the gov’t either, unless the PM decided to treat it as a vote of confidence, which he wouldn’t do if it was clear that the objection was to the nominee, not to the gov’t.
But as it is, though, no consent is needed, either from the Senate or the House, which is why judicial nominations don’t get much media play. Which was the point of the original post.
Milhouse (fc9c48) — 9/29/2005 @ 4:37 pmLets hope the election is this close, what happens if its a tie?
Chris Hutcherson (4f8f8f) — 10/3/2008 @ 12:33 pm