new member of High Court (to be)

[wearestardust]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/...to-high-court/

Must be something special if even George Brandis has something good to say about him.

[Blue Lightning]

It's encouraging in this respect: They've gone for a very good lawyer who is not at all party political. Fortunately, Australia shows few signs of heading down the unhealthy American path. All round, a highly regarded and very safe choice.

Gross generalisation coming: For most of the last several decades up until recently, the Court has tended to take an expansive view of Commonwealth power, often at the expense of the states. There was even a black joke among the state Solicitors-General a decade or so back whereby in their various cases against the Commonwealth they took nicknames of Confederate Generals on the losing sides of famous Civil War battles. The trend of expanding Commonwealth power has been interrupted over the last few years in a series of cases, of which Williams is one. As Commonwealth Solicitor-General, he's had extensive dealings with Government and, yes, even the Commonwealth public service . With that back ground, he may be subliminally sympathetic to the Commonwealth's interests, or at least not hostile.

But overwhelmingly, it's an excellent choice.

[FSM]

He's an Anglican:
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/h...821-24jtb.html

"My wife is a very committed Catholic. We attend mass as a family each week, even though I'm not Catholic. I'm Anglican, but not low church … It would be overstating it to think of me as a strong Christian. I try to uphold Christian values, but … I'm certainly not evangelical in my outlook."

Dave.

[Blue Lightning]

From Justinian:
http://www.justinian.com.au/news/good-old-new-boy.html

Attorney General Nicola Roxon understands what is required for a High Court appointment.
She worked there as Mary Gaudron's associate between 1992 and 1994. She knows that the court would want appointees young enough to have plenty of reserve juice and to have a collegial nature - quite apart from having a serious amount of legal smarts.
Gageler, at 54, has all of this in spades. Importantly, he'll have 16 years ahead of him, which should be enough time to see out the excesses of Abbottism.
He got there without behind-the-scenes work of a PR team or a job application speech to a bunch of political claqueurs.
...
In the end we didn't get an exotic appointee, someone from the wild west or someone with "diversity" ...
Prior to Tuesday (August 21) the speculation from High Court watchers was that Gageler might not be in contention because he led the government's case in what turned out to be the politically disastrous outcome to the challenge to the Malaysian solution.
"Poor Gageler," went the mutterings as the asylum seeker "problem" refused to go away. Then there was the upset over the school chaplains' case.
Roxxy got this question at her press conference on Tuesday:
"He [Gageler] provided you with advice on the Malaysia case and six of the seven judges disagreed with the position put by the Commonwealth, which the Commonwealth said was based on that advice. So, I mean, what does that say?
Roxxy: Well, what that says is that when you are on the highest court in the country you are able to make decisions on the law as you see fit and the court indeed did that."
...
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said after the decision of the court in the Malaysia solution case:
"We acted on legal advice, on legal advice that our case was sound."
The implication being that it was all Stephen Gageler's fault.
That is entirely wide of the mark.
Of course, Gagler ran the government's case in the High Court, but he never advised on the minister's declaration under*s.198A of the Migration Act.
The advice that the declaration was "sound" came from the Attorney General's department, not the Solicitor General ...

[wearestardust]

Well, yes. Lawyers aren't responsible for the matters they have to take on, just trying to do the best with what they've got. The bogan on the clapton omnibus tends not to get that.