Search results

No but they can make up interpretations to fit with new and emerging areas of law. I'll be honest I'd need to read it more carefully but my impression particularly of the Gleeson High Court was when the federal government wanted a conviction the judicial system would generally deliver.

It's frowned upon but I also don't think it's a vote turner. I also think beneath the bluster of the hard right Smith's actions have played out ok, the whole sticking up for a vulnerable young woman thing.

Precedent would have little to do with it, this is an emerging area of law and the until such time as some pretty definite statute comes in the high court will be largely making it up as they go along and at the very least Heydon and Hayne are likely to find that spreading around the world the...

Yes but its headed by an Australian citizen, it released Australian confidential diplomatic cables as well, seems pretty open and shut without having to drag the yanks into it.

I was talking about Australian courts, what do the American courts have to do with it?

Wikileaks has but

Justice by casual disregard for the rule of law?

Well that's gay.

I also think it needs to happen after your diplomatic appointment. You can't just retroactively wipe clean the slate because you're an official.

I think there is a constitutional impediment to people in gaol cells running for parliament.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-17/margaret-whitlam-obit/3894502 I liked Margaret, she was a good egg.

Shrek Song, oh dear.

Actually he appears to be muscling up for the leadership as well lately. I think he believes that if Gillard goes down, unless he usurps her he'll be going down with her. Hard to imagine under Smith but Crean and Rudd certainly have no love for Swanny.

I tried so hard to get into the authoritarian half, it's just not possible

There's no point, you haven't actually explained what it was that I said that you disagree with.

If for no other reason than he's a senator. Some constitutional technicality isn't going to see Labor ignore the confines of convention and precedent, particularly when there are five genuine contenders (Gillard, Crean, Rudd, Shorten and Smith) in the lower house.

Bolt is relevant to everything.

Yes darling but you read Andrew Bolt. And why do I keep bringing that up? Because it is paramount, it will undermine everything you ever say until you repudiate your defences of him.

Yeah Malcolm Mack is a genius in many regards but he says some fruity stuff.

Remember the good old days where if there was a crisis in Africa you actually got off your arse and went to a charity gig because of it? And then the proceeds from the charity gig could go towards propping up Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe.