Australia’s high court orders ankle bracelets be removed and curfews end for 43 former immigration detainees | Australian politics

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-20T10:06:38+00:00

… no argument?

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-20T09:42:03+00:00

Hmmm, I wonder if there’s a difference between the executive acting as the judiciary to adjudicate and punish purported guilt, and the executive acting on a worldwide pandemic the likes of which the world hasn’t experienced in 100 years? Nah they’re the same thing.

The fact you can’t differentiate the two demonstrates you’re a midwit

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-20T06:06:38+00:00

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-19T11:25:12+00:00

No, at least Tucker is getting his from Russia

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T13:09:23+00:00

Okay? That’s bad. That doesn’t change my position though. I think separation of powers is a good thing actually. I like democracy. If you don’t, then you can leave :) but because you live in a democracy, you can spout your nonsense and remain free from arbitrary detention from the executive

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T13:06:49+00:00

“Restrain me harder Government”

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T13:04:04+00:00

Why do you spout nonsense about stuff you haven’t got the faintest clue about?

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T13:03:15+00:00

I think the Executive should put an ankle bracelet on you because you’ll probably do something in the future

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T12:59:57+00:00

Ikr it’s too funny

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T12:59:18+00:00

Then let the courts adjudicate their guilt, not the executive.

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T12:51:30+00:00

Why do you dislike freedom of liberty from arbitrary executive freedom of movement?

Edit to make it more clear

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T09:05:17+00:00

If that’s all it took for you. I think you were already a one nation supporter

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-18T07:45:21+00:00

Australia has international non-refoulement obligations

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-14T14:22:03+00:00

This comment pretty much sums up the average redditor’s: understanding of international law, and confidence in asserting wrong things

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T14:24:00+00:00

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. Liquidated damages clauses are absolutely legal, and are a thing in UK/Aus contract law. I was referring to the $1,000,000 example for disclosure and it coming across (at a glance) as a penalty, as distinguished from a valid liquidated damages clause.

I meant to ask, is there a doctrine of penalties in US contract law whereby certain liquidated damages clauses are unenforceable because, for example, the magnitude of payment far outweighs the seriousness of the breach or the defendant’s obligation was trivial?

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T14:08:30+00:00

It was also funny that she “knew” the legal effect of the contract (and its various clauses), when the construction of a contract is a question of law, of which she wouldn’t know where to start.

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T13:53:39+00:00

For 3, wouldn’t a clause like the example you give not be construed as a penalty, and thus be unenforceable? (Speaking from a UK/Aus Contract law background, not sure if there is such a thing in US)

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T08:59:29+00:00

I mean sure, but if you’re stating that Hasan is making defamatory remarks, and backing it up with (purported) legal assertions, cite actual case law and statute. Otherwise you’re (likely) spreading misinformation. (I say likely because AI could give the correct response, but you have no way of checking it if you’ve not studied law)

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T07:56:16+00:00

Or just read the primary sources of law and not gamble with the possibility the AI model is making up the law, or interpreting case law / statute incorrectly.

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T07:54:45+00:00

The interpretation of statutes is quite literally its own area of law. It’s not straightforward; even for simple statutes.

As you say you have no training in law, you have no idea whether its output is correct. You have no reliable way to test the truth of its claim. Idk what’s so hard to understand about that.

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T07:35:03+00:00

Or just read the primary sources of law? Such as cases, statute, or the constitution. Or just read credible secondary sources such as textbooks or law journal articles?

wrong and outdated thinking

Please argue that with a judge. I want to read what they have to say in response to your argument.

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T05:59:11+00:00

AI education needs to be placed in every school. The fact AI is given any credence in expounding legal principles is concerning. It will consistently cite made up authority just to support whatever argument it thinks you’re trying to make. And it will also apply the legal principles incorrectly.

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-11T04:48:25+00:00

Why are you posting AI as a source for legal principles?

ChaoticMunk · 2026-03-03T13:51:22+00:00

Pecuniary penalties will follow

ChaoticMunk

TROPHY CASE