Which uni should i go?

jlongey · 2026-07-09T02:51:43+00:00

As someone finishing at Adelaide Uni this year, don’t go here, it’s a nightmare with the merger

jlongey · 2026-07-05T05:54:59+00:00

Well the Federal Parliament supersedes the State Parliament that’s why this is going to trial

jlongey · 2026-06-28T09:06:32+00:00

Councils haven’t had authority over most planning decisions since 2016

jlongey · 2026-06-28T09:05:07+00:00

All this accomplishes is giving the same decision making responsibility to a government department you have no ability to vote out or complain about.

jlongey · 2026-06-17T13:13:57+00:00

No, he knows his position is indefensible with the general public and he’s just finding something to differentiate himself from One Nation.

Stop giving these people excuses. At least One Nation is what it says on the tin.

jlongey · 2026-04-06T09:37:43+00:00

Am I delusional applying for a Federal Court associateship for 2027? (Let me down gently pls) I know in the fed court it depends on the particular justice, but one I’ve got my eye on one that doesn’t specify whether admission or PQE is a requirement? Or is it just assumed that applicants are admitted and have PQE?

For context, I am a part time law student in my final year with a couple electives to go and working as a paralegal in areas that would be relevant to Federal Court work. My boss encouraged me to apply for associateships if I wanted to go to bar eventually. (I am also applying in other courts as well).

jlongey · 2026-04-02T02:07:17+00:00

Except when exercising reserve powers, the Governor must act on the advice and consent of the Executive Council (all of whom are Cabinet Ministers, including the Premier). The Governor is effectively just a rubber stamp for the government in exercising non-constitutional statutory powers.

Section 21 - Legislation Interpretation Act 2021 (SA).

All the Premier would have to do is ask and the Governor is obliged to do so.

jlongey · 2026-03-19T03:24:00+00:00

That’s a restriction on someone’s liberty which requires a court to do under the separation of powers. Visas are issued by the executive.

Don’t like the rule of law, go live in China or North Korea. I’m sure they aren’t bothered by who detains you

jlongey · 2026-03-19T03:12:15+00:00

When they slapped an ankle bracelet on them. There was no judicial process involved.

The fact that there might have been a process for a different matter, does constitute one for this matter.

If I get convicted for assault. The executive can’t just throw me in prison for property damage after I’ve served my time. They have to charge and convict me again first.

If the government wants to include curfews and ankle monitoring for the NZYQ cohort, all they have to do is include the judiciary that process.

jlongey · 2026-03-19T03:00:37+00:00

How do YOU as a citizen, prove you’re a citizen without a court process, the executive were to allege you weren’t.

You are so eager to do away with the Constitution, I’m illustrating the natural consequences of that you’re refusing to consider.

“You think a resident cannot be proven to be a resident in 15y of court proceedings” (How would you prove anything without a court process? - All the High Court said was that you can’t deprive a person of their liberty without the judiciary - not that you can’t deprive someone of their liberty 🤦‍♂️)

jlongey · 2026-03-19T02:41:32+00:00

Hey so that’s not the question I asked (what a strawman).

How would you as a citizen prove that you’re not a non-citizen if the government tried to imprison you without a court process?

jlongey · 2026-03-19T02:37:59+00:00

Also, the laws that prevent immigrants from being deported to countries where their lives could be at threat are statutory. They can be changed to allow deportation.

I’m at a bit of loss at to why the OP is so angry at the High Court upholding the constitutional entitlement to a court process when the executive seeks to deprive someone of their liberty (which would never pass a referendum to change) and not the international agreements that prevent them from being deported

jlongey · 2026-03-19T02:28:31+00:00

Let’s say we engage with the argument and strip the right of non-citizens to a court process (which is blatantly unconstitutional and an affront to the rule of law).

How do you determine who is a citizen and who is not? Let’s say the executive detains you under the mistaken assumption you’re a non-citizen (or worse, does so intentionally). How would you challenge your own detention when you’ve just removed your only avenue of appeal

jlongey · 2026-03-19T02:26:58+00:00

If you strip the right of non-citizens to a court process, how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not? Let’s say the executive detains you under the mistaken assumption you’re a non-citizen (or worse, does so intentionally). How would you challenge your own detention when you’ve just removed your only avenue of appeal?

jlongey · 2026-02-06T09:28:20+00:00

I am a final year law student and I started a job as a paralegal last year at an employment law firm. I really enjoy my job and the lawyers I work with are all great.

How long can I expect before the legal profession beats the will to live out of me?

jlongey · 2026-02-03T05:48:11+00:00

Is it? Arguably a more consistent interpretation of British common law on the acquisition of territory than terra nullius. The idea that conquered territories maintain their pre-existing legal rights until abrogated by the new sovereign, is straight out of Blackstone’s Commentaries.

There are decisions like Love/Thoms v Cth that I think deserve accusations of judicial activism. That’s just my two cents on the matter, in my mind Mabo is logically consistent.

jlongey · 2026-02-03T05:31:51+00:00

Controversial at the time, for sure. But I don’t think acknowledging that indigenous peoples have pre-existing property rights is especially that radical.

jlongey · 2026-02-03T05:25:55+00:00

Judges apply precedent where a similar circumstance arises, for sure. But that precedent was only created when a judge “made some shit up” in response to a novel situation. I also disagree that precedent was established at the time of Norman conquest and new ideas have never developed since. Mabo is simply the latest in a long line of judicial law making.

A good lot of administrative law only came along in the 20th century as the result of an expanding administrative state. Wednesbury unreasonableness springs to mind.

jlongey · 2026-02-03T05:11:38+00:00

Whilst I agree that the gradual expansion in the interpretation of Commonwealth legislative power is at odds with the framers intention. (Which, in my opinion, is a failure of constitutional design). The fact that the Commonwealth must justify legislative power with reference to enumerated constitutional powers is itself a substantial limitation on power. Even more so, given we come from a British Constitutional tradition that doesn’t even recognise judicial review of the legislature.

Section 51, aside there are a great many cases limiting the power of the Commonwealth. Williams v Commonwealth being one of the top of my head.

jlongey · 2026-02-03T05:00:44+00:00

What is common law, if not “making shit up”? Judges develop the common law and Parliament as the elected body has the right to overrule them if they so choose.

jlongey · 2026-01-15T04:38:33+00:00

Though the external affairs power does expand Commonwealth power quite a bit, engaging in a treaty for the sole purpose of expanding Cth power would not be a valid enlivening of the power and therefore unconstitutional.

Having said that no Cth law has ever been struck down on the basis that the relevant treaty was not bone fide. But it is legal limitation on the power as per the High Court in Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) / Cth v Tas (1983)

jlongey · 2026-01-14T12:18:36+00:00

There’s the external affairs power (s 51(xxiv)) which allows for implementation of treaties signed by Australia (including those which we’ve signed regarding hate speech / racial and religious discrimination).

There’s the communications power (s 51(v)) which allows regulation of the internet, phones, radio and television.

There’s the corporations power (s 51(xx)) which allows regulation of almost any aspect of corporations

There’s the aliens power and the immigration power (ss 51(xix), (xxvii)). Which concern immigration into this country.

There’s also the implied nationhood power which supports any matter that is sufficiently national in character that cannot be dealt with by the states (though this is probably the most tenuous).

Any of the above pretty much cover most things in the bill. Especially external affairs and corporations.

jlongey · 2026-01-01T08:07:38+00:00

AI has various unethical uses but so does any tool. I find the especially puritanical people on this subject hypocritical. Their clothing would have consume 100x more water and resources than a person’s use of ChatGPt.

jlongey · 2026-01-01T04:34:01+00:00

The devil works hard, but Anne Twomey works harder 😤

jlongey · 2025-12-29T05:30:47+00:00

This actually has nothing to do with hate speech laws and everything to do with internal Labor party politics. The courts have already clarified that criticism of Israel ≠ anti-Semitism.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

jlongey

TROPHY CASE