A former attorney general explains the judicial panel's careful decision to uphold a judge's position despite concerns about her conduct, emphasizing the high threshold required for removal and the importance of comity between government branches.
Stacked weekly counts; colour by lean. “n/a” covers government and iwi-Māori sources where lean isn't applicable.
How this topic has been named, week by week. A new alias winning out is usually a framing shift.
Verbatim segments from politicians speaking on podcasts and radio shows about this topic. Sourced via the voice-reference library — each speaker has been confirmed manually from their voice clip. Click play to stream the original audio from the publisher, pre-seeked to the moment the quote starts.
That's a very good question. I would think if a judge, for example, went along to a political party gathering and was making comments about the chief justice and the place needs jolly good shake up, there was a reference to a A case from North America where a judge came into court wearing a MAGA hat. You know, stop thinking things like that, that it's so unbelievably outrageous it goes beyond the pale. Here there was room for some debate and the panel decided that her behaviour was lacking in comity, and I'll come to that in a minute, but didn't justify removal. The whole point about comity is it says between the various branches of government. You've got to show respect and restraint because they are equal branches of government. The judges are not higher or more pure than the parliamentarians and likewise the executive has to show respect to the judiciary and vice versa.
Up to 12 framings spread across orientations. Each framing is a short phrase the topic extractor generated to characterise the piece's stance — not a quote from the source. Click through to read the original.
balance of respect between branches of government
Chris Finlayson: Former Attorney General explains 'careful' Ema Aitken decisionSpotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.
