My
good friend Andrew Bolt rarely gets a mention on this here blog. Well actually before The Triumvirate refresh he wasn't mentioned at all.
But the famous
climate change denier has created an interesting effect on his own blog, by paying out Chief Justice Murray Gleeson.
Bolt loves to quote the term "unelected judges", especially when being a right wing nutbag, the idea of progressive judges interpreting the law must absolutely irk him. So he takes the opportunity like any controversial columnist, to dig his heels in.
But it does raise an interesting question.
Bolt argues that activist judges "create" new law, and that this is different to "interpreting" it.
Which in my opinion is total poppycock.
Honestly, if Bolt wants a situation where judges have no room to move, he should have a long time ago lobbied his bestest pals in the liberal party to re-write the books as
black letter law. Because, to the credit of the current Government, most laws, especially those surrounding financial arrangements, recognise complex situations and take on a principled approach.
The truth of the matter is, Bolt wouldn't give two hoots if High Court Judges "create" new law (interpret the law) in regards to the tax system, but watch him get arked up if they impose on his conservative sensibilities.
The reason we have judges is because black letter law can never assume and predict the wild and varying set of facts that exist out there in the real world. And if "un-elected" judges interpret laws in a way that seems opposite to policy intent, guess what, the law is re-drafted. It's how the system works (albeit a lengthy process), and it's how laws are refined.
Discuss.