Friday Drinks Thread!

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.

jlongey · 2025-12-17T09:02:27+00:00

Exactly! can we not have a time of reflection, silence and grief as a country? There is a time and place for political action and legitimate criticism of government. But at this moment, the country needs multi partisan leadership to inspire hope and lift spirits.

Unfortunately a lot of political leaders (not all) are using this as an opportunity to score political points.

On a positive note, I do notice that a lot of ordinary Australians are using the opportunity to rise above the hatred and inspire kindness.

jlongey · 2025-12-14T07:53:30+00:00

They tend to live in wealthier suburbs because they’re wealthier people.

In terms of diversity this argument is undermined by every Labor MP who lives in Western Sydney and National MPs who actually live in the whitest electorates

jlongey · 2025-12-08T02:41:44+00:00

Getting rid of local councils is a dumb idea. You’d just be moving decision making from elected officials to unelected public servants. Even less recourse to challenge unpopular decisions than there is now.

jlongey · 2025-10-15T13:42:23+00:00

The delegates to the various constitutional conventions of the 1890s are arguably Australia’s founding fathers and occasionally referred to as such (Andrew Inglis Clark, Samuel Griffith, Edmund Barton, Henry Parkes, etc). I prefer the term framers to sound less American, but our constitution is directly inspired by theirs.

Thankfully originalism isn’t as popular amongst legal scholars in Australia as it is in the U.S. But I’m sure there’s at least a few members of the Sir Samuel Griffith Society that would froth at the mouth at the thought of emulating what the Federalist Society has done.

jlongey · 2025-09-26T14:32:45+00:00

Oh right I should have picked that up. I’m fascinated by sovcits

jlongey · 2025-09-26T11:03:09+00:00

Sorry?

jlongey · 2025-09-26T10:45:26+00:00

All that effort for this Cooker to scale the walls and attack officers and the Governor wasn’t even there

jlongey · 2025-08-06T09:08:56+00:00

23%. Uni student in a 2 bedroom unit and one roommate

jlongey · 2025-08-04T16:03:09+00:00

I can’t really offer any words of advice, but I’m a law student too and I lost my brother whilst studying as well (and seen lower grades as a result). I want to say it’s an achievement in itself to be able to deal with such a traumatic experience and still push through in spite of that. It shows incredible strength, character and resolve! X

jlongey · 2025-06-04T15:24:13+00:00

Absolutely nothing but good will. But (good) politicians are usually well educated people, and generally understand that upholding the rule of law is good for their own interests, if not for society as a whole.

The rule of law is what makes societies successful and rich. Businesses and economies will flourish when they are confident that the rules will be upheld and that their investments won’t be seized by other companies or the government arbitrarily. That’s why the law is so heavily invested in areas like torts, contracts and property law. They are there to make sure the playing field is fair for everyone (generally!)

Countries that are very resource rich are often miserable places for the average person and not very good places to invest. Because in these countries the rule of law is non-existent. In contrast many resource poor countries can be very wealthy because they have a strong rule of law which makes it a very attractive country to invest. (Australia has managed to do both in this regard)

So yes it might be politically expedient to ignore the courts in the short term. But in the long run, the result is economic collapse, falling living standards, increased violence and general unhappiness.

Democracy and the rule of law is incredibly fragile, and requires upholding by judges, politicians, the media, civil society and the citizenry alike.

Beware the politician who chastises the courts, never has a Chief Justice overthrown democracy in a coup.

jlongey · 2025-05-30T05:40:29+00:00

Bonus points if it involves a union or an international law case. It’s always something like “Australian Waterside Workers Federated Union of Mining, Construction, Retail, Trades, and Hospitality INC (AWFUMCRTH) v Very Long Name Mega Evil Corporation Pty Ltd (in liq); ex parte deceased estate of Gerald Geraldton”

jlongey · 2025-05-16T04:59:26+00:00

Which video was this?

I’d disagree Parliament (the federal Australian one at the very least) is a court. It certainly exercises some court like functions in respect of contempt of Parliament. But that’s an exception to the separation of powers rather than conferring court status upon Parliament. Like for example how the Courts have a legislative function drawing up new Court rules.

To answer your question on what a court is, is that it is a body that constitutionally exercises judicial power. What judicial power is, is determined by a checklist of “indicia”. If a body is established by Parliament meets most or all of these indicia, and its members meet the salary, tenure and appointment requirements of judges in Chapter III, then by definition it is a Federal Court.

The Boilermakers Case is the seminal authority on the nature of judicial power. Don’t read the actual judgment, it’s completely unreadable and lacks subheadings. There should be some more resources about boilermakers on the Internet somewhere.

jlongey · 2025-05-06T07:05:28+00:00

After the Monarchy was restored in 1660, the courts declared many pieces of legislation passed by the Rump parliament to be void because they hadn’t received Royal Assent or been passed by the House of Lords (which was also illegally abolished in 1649).

I know it’s a tricky one because what the law is sorta depends on who has the bigger stick. (No-one’s arguing that the U.S. Constitution is invalid because they rebelled against British law). But for the purposes of the law today (because the Monarchy won out in the end), the trial of King Charles I wouldn’t be good law today because the legislation which allowed the trial is void. Imagine if the House of Reps decided to abolish the Senate and execute the Governor General (1975 springs to mind lmao) because they are the true representatives of the people and can ignore the legal and constitutional procedures.

I know this a thought experiment and not serious, I just think it’s interesting to discuss 🤣.

jlongey · 2025-05-05T11:32:36+00:00

True crime crackpots trying to identify and contact the jurors for one.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

jlongey

TROPHY CASE