The Australian Constitution expect the member of representative and senator to be elected by the people. Instead, almost the democratic countries, the multiple levels of the judge are the senior lawyers, the people have never voted for any judge, including the supreme judge. Certainly, the judges are the legal servants as any public servant, but the judge career links to legal system so the most people hate involvement into the legal argument and staying away from the court, actually the legal fee is very expensive and sometimes the dishonest judges bias, the justice to be driven into the wrong direction, actually the robbers with the paper knife and wooden hammer use the court with the attorney power for the personal interest and the worst judges exploit the justice career into the politics. The dishonest judges and bad dignity workers in the legal field that cause the hatred, the lost credit of people, they destroy the justice and harm the prestige plus the respect. It is in the same circumstance, the left media released the fake news, created stories, the reporters without a brain that destroys the mainstream media.
The judge earns a high salary and the law permits doing the judiciary, some judges are arrogant, they believe themselves as the top of the country, sitting above the law, so the arrogant judges are like the kings without a throne in the democratic country. The arrogant judges should take over the authority limited, as the same as the US, some Democratic judges released the court orders opposing the travel ban order of the US President Donald Trump, but the judge orders made in the courtroom, represent themselves, not the US people. The arrogant judges reflect the personal stance and rival, it is not the right significant of justice. In Australia, a judge granted the bail for a felon Haron Monis being investigated with 40 sexual attack charges and a murder probe, the judge helped him sieged the hostages at Café Lindt siege. But the investigation (also the judge) slammed police while the Café Lindt’s hostage original case was a judge’s bail. In Queensland, a former butcher Raymond Akhtar Ali who is serving a life sentence for bashing to death his newborn daughter in 1998. During living in the prison camp, he claimed the meals have not met his religion because the meat doesn’t certify Allal and he had to eat the veggies in 4 months. Mr. Ali applied the lawsuit, he succeeded after the court ordered government compensated $AUD 3,000. This money is the taxpayers, the judge paid nothing. The Ali’s case proves the judge sitting above the government and the national interest, the court order is like the king’s decree in the medieval. The democratic countries need to overhaul the judges in the legal system.
The lawmaker and judge relation is a driver who couldn’t shut down the manufacturer, the court couldn’t eliminate an act that passed the parliament houses. The lawmaker creates the law and the judge applies, the legal practice couldn’t abolish an act and creates a new act. The house couldn’t build without a plan, so the lawmakers are the law architects, a builder has to comply the plan.
Mostly the court authorizes into the legal debate, criminal, civil law, not the political involvement. Some circumstances drop into the justice as a politician, government official being accused the corruption or wrongdoing. Recently, the politicians of Greens, One Nation, and Nationals have a problem about the dual citizens, it needs the court because they break the section 44 of the Constitution.
However, the same sex-marriage legislation performs by the plebiscite reflects the people opinion couldn’t bring to the court after the conspiracy failed in the Parliament. The Coalition, One Nation, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull are not criminals or breaking the law, neither the Constitution. Therefore, some same sex-marriage politicians challenge the high court, how comes? The judges of high court could not have the power above the parliament house, they are the law applicant, not the lawmaker. Any change has to bring the parliament house, not in a courtroom. But, when the justice influences into the politics and rival or the same sex marriage judges, they could jump over the authority and dismiss the Parliament decided. The same sex marriage challenges at the high court that conflict the Parliament and people voice, the high court may reject the case if they understand the legal signification.
The same sex marriage supporters are losers, whatever the plebiscite processes, the government will register the referendum before the deadline August 24, 2017. Certainly, the Coalition government must do it as the parliament house decided. The plebiscite reflects the people voice, not a minority has about 1% of the couple in the nation. The losers disappoint, they couldn’t cheat the country to legalize in parliament house, certainly, they ignore the people’s opinion. The last hope in the high court. When winning, they claim the victory, if losing brings to the court.
The same sex-marriage legislation has to be decided by the people in the plebiscite, the Labor, Greens and some Coalition, including the high court’s judges, all have no right to impose the same sex marriage legalization above the people’s want.