New-old stuff from Spiggsy Spigelman CJ ... The four categories of judicial personalities ... Introducing the Vincent Index ... Soapy Brandis conjures some constitutional thoughts 
Justinian is heading to the souqs of Damascus and Aleppo, the Roman ruins of Palmyra, the Crusader fortifications of the Krak des Chevaliers and the wonders of Petra.
Doubtless we'll be invited to contribute to the Middle East peace process upon arrival in Jerusalem.
Full editorial production will resume when we return to our work stations on October 18.
Before we, as Kevin Rudd would say, "zip", there are a few things that need to be briefly unburdened ...
* * *
The Law Soc of NSW threw a glittering cocktail party last night (Monday, Sept 27) to launch Spiggsy Spigelman's latest writings.
Actually, the words are relatively old, but have been neatly package in a new tome called Opening Law Term. 
It comprises speeches the CJ has given over the past 12-years at banquets of lawyers to mark the quaint ceremony that kicks-off each new year, which judges refer to as the "New Law Year".
Some might think that because all this wisdom rests comfortable online that the book amounts to money for old rope.
I urge you to thing again.
There are few places where such reassuring insights are so conveniently collected in a crisp 100 or so pages.
The magnificence of the common law is the subject of much rejoicing, along with other chestnuts like the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
There is also Spiggsy's timely warning of the chaos that would surely follow if judges lost control of regulating the legal caper.
The idea that the legal system is an embodiment of the values of "tolerance and inclusiveness" is also teased and refreshingly explored.
And where else can you discover the historical provenience of the size of the booster rockets on the side of US space shuttles?
It seems they are confined to the width of railway tracks, which in turn evolved from the size of the backside of two horses.
Sir Tony Mason in the foreward says:
"[Spigelman is] an evolutionist who believes in organic development rather than reform by way of grand design, a belief which is grounded in experience.
We can still recall the exciting claims made for the 'Access to Justice' initiatives in years gone by, claims which were largely disappointed, except in so far as case management improved the efficiency of the legal system without reducing its costs."
I think citizens far and wide would be touched to find in their Christmas stockings a copy of Opening Law Term and to have it proudly sitting on their shelves alongside another prized possession, Speeches of a Chief Justice: James Spigelman 1998-2008.
* * *
Vincent: judicial categoriserFrank Vincent, formerly of VicAppeals, recently conveniently defined four categories into which all judges variously fit.
They are:
- Good-hearted but not very bright individuals who were unlikely to do anything terribly wrong;
- Good-hearted people of good personality who were bright and made good judges;
- Nasty individuals who were not very bright, but could be handled most of the time through the appeal process; and
- Those who were temporarily unsuited but very smart - a serious problem for any legal system.
A subscriber has thoughtfully come up with the idea that Commonwealth and State governments should implement a MyJudge website so that citizens could see into which category judges fit.
Maybe more needs to be done on developing the diagnostic tools to assist with the categorisation.
It gives us an idea.
We'll seek your assistance in a program of judicial classification. It will be called the Vincent Index and we'll call for nominations into each of the four categories as soon as we've washed the desert sands out of what's left of our hair.
* * *
I see Soapy Brandis has put out a rather asinine legal opinion about the pairing of the Speaker.
He declares that the Constitution prevents the extension of pairing arrangements to the Speaker. Full stop.
You'd think the Liberals could fetch-up someone with the veneer of independence to lend some cred to their constitutional posturing.
It was rather like getting the family accountant to do their election costings.
From what I gather Soapy was regarded as a bit of a plodder at the Vegas bar. The local Grill overlooked him for silk and he was ultimately anointed by the grace and favour of Daphnis de Jersey.
None of this has stopped Soap's legal advice being trotted out by coalitionists as hot gospel at every available opportunity.
Others with deeper constitutional learning, such as Stephen Gageler and David Bennett, think the House of Representatives has the power to decide on its own arrangements about the Speaker.
Gageler in his opinion says there are two provisos that are constitutionally ordained. That the Speaker not have a deliberative vote and not be depreived of a casting vote AND the arrangement with the pair be voluntary.
I may have missed something, but a quick database search of Austlii indicates that Soapy Brandis has never appeared before the High Court.