David, I look forward with eager anticipation to your rejoinder. I suspect that a hard hill to climb (though I can think of one easier way up) may be to counter Partridge’s contention that:
“Second, and more fundamentally, Harvey’s concept of parliamentary “failure” misunderstands the nature of parliamentary sovereignty. When Parliament chooses not to legislate on an issue or to legislate in a particular way, that is itself a political decision that deserves respect under our constitutional arrangements.
To suggest courts should step in when they perceive Parliament has “failed to act” would effectively give courts the power to override Parliament’s choices – an approach difficult to reconcile with basic constitutional principles.”
But then that observation may be one that, upon further consideration, you may accept as edging on irrefutable.
Either way, it is indeed refreshing to have the opportunity to follow reasoned debate rather than to be confronted by the partisan commentary that passes for reasoned opinion or argument in the MSM.
Cleaning out our Nelson garage yesterday I came across a 1975 edition of the Christchurch Press. A paper filled to the gunwales with intelligent, grammatical reporting and commentary. The contrast with the ill-edited rag - a mere vehicle for advertising and recycled “news”
Back in 1975 The Press would have had a full complement of sub-editors in-house. Today Stuff's newspapers - not its main format for distributing news - are sub-edited by a hub of copy editors who jump from paper to paper and have far less time to do the job.
Thanks David. It came as no surprise to me that two grownups such as you and Roger Partridge are capable of having a sensible, unemotional debate/discussion. And both of you are highly informed on the subject. I thoroughly endorse Roger Partridges taking our current judiciary to task for adopting judicial activism.
Ah, music to my ears. A robust exchange of ideas, the opportunity, & right, to aver and assert, joined with the obligation to receive & consider. That is indeed how we reach higher knowledge. But such requires a significant degree of humility and a willingness to concede when valid points are made.
Sadly, in most areas of modern-day society (certainly rife in NZ), cohesive, coherent arguments of reason are too often met with responses such as ‘you’re a racist’, ‘climate change denier!’, ‘islamaphobe!’, or pig-shit ignorant rejoinders like ‘he’s trying to change the Treaty’. Sigh, I fear our citizens are on average simply too dumb to progress.
David, I look forward with eager anticipation to your rejoinder. I suspect that a hard hill to climb (though I can think of one easier way up) may be to counter Partridge’s contention that:
“Second, and more fundamentally, Harvey’s concept of parliamentary “failure” misunderstands the nature of parliamentary sovereignty. When Parliament chooses not to legislate on an issue or to legislate in a particular way, that is itself a political decision that deserves respect under our constitutional arrangements.
To suggest courts should step in when they perceive Parliament has “failed to act” would effectively give courts the power to override Parliament’s choices – an approach difficult to reconcile with basic constitutional principles.”
But then that observation may be one that, upon further consideration, you may accept as edging on irrefutable.
Either way, it is indeed refreshing to have the opportunity to follow reasoned debate rather than to be confronted by the partisan commentary that passes for reasoned opinion or argument in the MSM.
Cleaning out our Nelson garage yesterday I came across a 1975 edition of the Christchurch Press. A paper filled to the gunwales with intelligent, grammatical reporting and commentary. The contrast with the ill-edited rag - a mere vehicle for advertising and recycled “news”
- that is the Press today was painful to absorb.
Back in 1975 The Press would have had a full complement of sub-editors in-house. Today Stuff's newspapers - not its main format for distributing news - are sub-edited by a hub of copy editors who jump from paper to paper and have far less time to do the job.
Thanks David. It came as no surprise to me that two grownups such as you and Roger Partridge are capable of having a sensible, unemotional debate/discussion. And both of you are highly informed on the subject. I thoroughly endorse Roger Partridges taking our current judiciary to task for adopting judicial activism.
Ah, music to my ears. A robust exchange of ideas, the opportunity, & right, to aver and assert, joined with the obligation to receive & consider. That is indeed how we reach higher knowledge. But such requires a significant degree of humility and a willingness to concede when valid points are made.
Sadly, in most areas of modern-day society (certainly rife in NZ), cohesive, coherent arguments of reason are too often met with responses such as ‘you’re a racist’, ‘climate change denier!’, ‘islamaphobe!’, or pig-shit ignorant rejoinders like ‘he’s trying to change the Treaty’. Sigh, I fear our citizens are on average simply too dumb to progress.
ps I concur, NZ Inst produces some vg work.