there are clear reasons why there is a separation of powers, that the Courts are an entity of judgement of legality: while the parliament creates laws, the courts decide if the laws created are 'legal'.
when High Court finds a law to be illegal, it can trump parliamentary authority. the law created by Ruddock was done for political reasons. the High Court should have reviewed this law much earlier with an unbiased examination of compliance with the constitution. the failure of Ruddock to assess the probability of a constitutional clash is telling of the sense of superiority, hubris even, of Government.
Law courts should not be political appointees. judges should only be appointed to the High Court after rigorous assessment of political neutrality.
if we are ever to have 'good' laws our politicians also need to tested on the same measure - apolitical independence is, imo, the key to laws which won't risk being overturned by the High Court.
