It's not that I am unable to comprehend it. What I am seeing is this man posting on a forum, on the one hand not expressing a view, and seeming to object to others having a view. That's what a forum is - the exact purpose - a place to express an opinion, and an expectation for that opinion to be challenged, only with facts and not falsehoods.
Instead of challenging a view, you attack the person saying it with your dismissive ways. You claimed that the highly and experienced judges, which was never refuted, carried out a forensic analysis and made a decision. Even that is not refuted.
What is refuted is that Judges are failsafe. They are not - and the data proves it.
The legal interpretation that the SC has arrived at, and despite their warning, is that the Commission and the government are overreaching.
You can tell the forums that I'm uneducated nincompoop while setting yourself up as a superior intellect as much as you like, but people will notice you.
Dr Victoria McCloud is a highly respected former High Court judge, a former Master of the administrative court, and a Doctor of Psychology, altogether superior in knowledge and experience to either of us, and her arguments are compelling. I linked you to her profile to make the point.
Ian Dunt has written a piece too, which sets out the case rather well. You can read it here ...
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about
... or is he another one you can add to your list of know nothing dunces?