Important to reflect on just how dated this concept that advocacy provides all you need to be a judge now looks
As Kerr notes, "Competence in appearing before judges has, in other words, been taken as a substitute for competence to judge."
As she notes, this approach has now increasingly be abandoned in the UK. (Also I love the idea of talking about some of these taboos)
The way we educated and appoint judges is not a static ideal, and needs to adjust in light of evolving expectations and experiments in other jurisdictions.
Oz has a great history in developing judicial education, but as Kerr notes there are some troubling conceptual limitations at the core of the modern system. We need to have these (often difficult) debates about the type of judiciary we want in this country.
In short, if you have even a passing interest in judicial studies, have a look at this piece
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A 🧵 on managing expectations in #academia#highereducation (from my own painfully learnt experiences)
#AcademicTwitter, I accidently deleted my earlier popular pinned thread. I thought it was a good excuse to repost, but with some further reflections (older/wiser?)
These are tips that I wish I had learnt earlier - I hope they help a few of you struggling with the many demands of academic life in long, dragging #pandemic where academic life is increasingly under acute pressure and everything feels extra hard
In the article we examine the pivots to remote hearings our courts have undertaken, and probe the issues of public law and good judicial administration that arise with this shift. We also flag the opportunities for future reform presented by this profound cultural shift
The changes in judicial practices in the last 6 months have been profound - and there are as many challenges ahead as there are opportunities that have been created. This is a needed conversation for all those with an interest in judicial studies, practice and administration.
THREAD ON HIGHER ED: This wonderful article by Lynda Ng is a must read for anyone working in (or interested in) higher education in Australia. It exposes the fundamental misconceptions that have plauged the corporatisation of our Universites.
I look forward to hearing @AmeliaLoughland response to this - what a great thing for the work of young graduate to invite such a detailed response from leaders in empirical judicial studies t
This type of scholarship is still new in Australia, and we are still probing out the uses and limits of it. However, like all legal scholarship it should be discursive. The debate is enriched by disagreement and counter analysis
There appear to be methodological differences between the two studies- though this needs to be unpacked. It seems that most of the concern with loughland piece is that the sample was unrepresentative and that propositions went beyond the data.
Great #proudson moment today. My Dad is appearing in the @HighCourtofAus in the important native title case NLC v Quall - concerning native title, improper delegation and representative governance.
This cases has been a long fight for important principles of properly engaging traditional owners in decisions directly affecting their right.
1) This genuine 'editing' transforms good work into excellent work. Too often we academics write with focus only on the content. Proper editing challenges us to focus on conveying the essential message
(note, this is one of the many benefits of #academictwitter - we have to write concisely ... the pain ... the horror)