With the appointment of Justice Bell to the Australian High Court today, three out of the seven judges of the Court will be female. I wonder if this will change the tenor of the Court? Interesting days.
(yes, in the earlier version of this post, I somehow managed to convince myself that there were four women on the High Court. Doh!)
Update:
JG has pointed out in comments that Janet Albrechtsen is against the new appointment (naturally). Not because Bell J lacks merit, but because people might think Bell J lacks merit:
Even if Bell’s appointment was not based on gender, the gender perception emerges to detract from Bell’s ability. With the Labor Government’s long, undistinguished history of pursuing quotas and affirmative action policies for women, Bell’s appointment may look like another leg-up for the activist sisterhood.
Sigh! This kind of speculation about token appointments is indeed a reason why affirmative action policies can cause more harm than good. Even when a deserving candidate from a minority is appointed, it detracts from her appointment because people may suspect she is a token.
But this argument with regard to affirmative action generally should be separated from this particular appointment. There is agreement Bell J is experienced, intelligent and up to the job, and that she will bring some much-needed criminal law expertise to the bench, so three cheers for her!
Update II:
Further demolition of Janet from Tobias Ziegler. It is a very illogical piece by Janet.
18 Comments
Am I misunderstanding something – aren’t there seven judges? Not a majority, but still as close to gender balance as we’ve reached.
I’ll fix it – must be a typo.
Twas my mistake – somehow I thought there were four women on the HCA – then I realised there were only three.
Not quite a majority yet.
An easy mistake to make, Legal Eagle, given Heydon J’s touchy-feeliness in ‘new category’ negligence cases like Cattanach v Melchior and Harriton v Stephens. And he and GummowJ (Heydon’s best man, apparently:- ( http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/19/1040174344726.html ) are so anti-phallocracy to boot.
Oops. My bad, err … fallacy.
Sweeney, what can I say, you wicked witty thing… Gave me a good laugh.
I always think Justice Kenny of the Federal Court is already on the High Court, just because she seems to crop up on the media’s shortlist every time one of the HCA crowd starts nearing the statutory retirement age …. glad to know I’m not the only one who thought “Hang on, aren’t there three already? Crennan, Keifel, that other one…oh…..that’s right ….there isn’t another one …..”
You know, Flozz, you’ve hit the nail on the head – somehow, I assumed Kenny J was already there… She was mentioned repeatedly in the articles I read.
I would guess the court will become more earnest, scholarly, and reputable. These sheilahs aren’t exactly flibbertigibbets, like Kirby.
Still, Janet Albrechtsen is not happy Jan, squealing Even if Bell’s appointment was not based on gender, the gender perception emerges to detract from Bell’s ability.
It’s time Janet was carted off to the knackery, me thinks.
Ding dong!
i mean really, Janet. When it comes to the HC, who can say who “the best” is, and what that really means? The best the AG can really do is make a list of the strongest candidates and out of the list make the most politically opportunistic choice possible.
Totally agreed, JG. What’s Janet suggesting – that we shouldn’t choose a woman because people might think the choice is based on gender? As you say, who is “the best” anyway? The important thing is that there seems to be no doubt she is up to the job.
Janet reminds me of Ann Coulter who said she wanted women’s vote revoked because they vote for the wrong party.
I find this whole conversation amazing…. Before the appointment everyone was curious to know whether or not an activist judge like kirby would be appointed, and now even a site like this isn’t discussing the appointment on it’s merit, but rather because of the appointee’s gender? Surely we’re past this, and why won’t somebody write an article predicting what she’ll be like?!
lomlate – to be honest, as a Victorian non-criminal lawyer, I have very little direct experience of her Honour (either on the bench or through judgments), and thus would be loath to comment on what she’ll be like.
I’d happily hear from any lawyers who have more knowledge? All I know is that apart from Janet, everyone seems to be quite happy with the choice, which generally suggests it’s a good thing. If you are interested, here’s the press release announcing her appointment.
My main query, of course, is what her opinion of restitution law would be, but I guess I”ll have to wait and see until a judgment comes up…
We did need a criminal barrister on the HC as a matter of urgency, particularly once Callinan J retired. He had a great instinct for the criminal law; I’m hoping Bell J will be able to fill his shoes in that regard. Some top commercial barristers have never handled a GBH or murder; being expected to try one at Supreme or High Court level would be tricky without some experience (she says, making her usual defence of the Criminal Bar).
I’m no criminal lawyer, but I wholeheartedly agree with you, SL. We need a wide spectrum of experience on the bench.
lomlate
and now even a site like this isn’t discussing the appointment on it’s merit, but rather because of the appointee’s gender?
Are you off your rocker?
1. Legal Eagle posted this thread for a few reasons, such as…aw, I don’t know, she’s a lawyer and academic (like SL) and shit like HC appointments run her motor? If Humphrey Bear or Jimmy Spiegelman had been appointed, she would have posted something.
I would have thought the fact her post gently focused on the – quite wonderful – fact that our HC is now basically gender-balanced, without slamminmg the appointee as a braindead ambulance-chaser, kinda implies a thumbs-up to La Bell’s quality, and that we are all quite chuffed!
2. My own post kinda reiterates this attitude, but in case there is any ambiguity, I think the appointment of Virginia Bell is the fucking dog’s bollocks! She’s as smart as a whip, has a career that can boast grazed knees from mud-wrestling down in the trenches (unlike the foppish Kirby, who has only ever had to deal with a poor person or aborigine while there is a camera and/or “human rights” award in the offing), has cred as an advocate (both solicitor and barrister), a highly “clubbable” judge and respected leader of the profession!
All Australians should be pleased and proud as punch at her appointment. I know I am!!
Is that better, love?
We did need a criminal barrister on the HC as a matter of urgency
Someone actually has to say this?
2 Trackbacks
[...] ELSEWHERE: More on the Bell appointment from Legal Eagle. [...]
[...] skepticlawyer Affirmative action and its whiff — at least as spotted on Planet Janet — came up on Legal Eagle’s thread on the appointment of Justice Bell to the High Court. I’ve since had a couple of emails [...]