The French Complexion

Prime Minister, are you worried the wording leaves the door open for high court challenges or are you confident it’s as watertight as you say it is?”

I’m absolutely confident. But I’m confident on the basis of people like the former head of the high court, Justice French. He might know something about the constitution.”

This entry was posted in History, Hypocrisy of the left, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The French Complexion

  1. Entropy says:

    Ah the Malaysian Solution. ROFL!
    Well skewered.

  2. Buccaneer says:

    Constitutional disagreement from Greg Craven

    Constitutional lawyer Greg Craven has also spoken to ABC News and he says he feels “very poorly” that the voice can make representations to the executive government as well as parliament. Craven is very clear he is in favour of the voice, but has concerns about the constitutional mechanisms around it.

    I think the result that will be that the voice will be able to legally intrude constantly on every possible decision. And there will be every reasonable prospect that that would lead to multiple judicial interventions and the result of that would be, I think, that government would be seriously compromised.

    Craven says he disagrees with Twomey’s argument there is not a legal obligation on the executive to take this into account unless parliament says so.

    I think on any reasonable analysis, that does not include the legal effect of representations by the voice, that’s just too fundamental.

    I find it strange how often incurious lefty ideologues like Gillard and Albanese can get professional ‘experts’ like Twomey and Justice French to prostitute themselves to the cause. Perhaps it is because they observe how the left casts out those who don’t toe the line.

    The problem with the voice is clearly more obvious than this erstwhile elephant in the room. It is that the voice will hand a blank cheque to the government to change the constitution. Squabbling over whether or not disagreements will go to the high court is secondary, it hands the government of the day the ability to write whatever it likes with a simple majority in both houses. That is unprecendented.

  3. Diogenes says:

    Sleazy says that the Voice won’t affect defence. What happens when the voice says the great spirit will be frightened if a nuclear submarine plays around in its bowels.

    Making reference to the poor bastard in WA fronting the court for building a bridge over a creek on his own land – because it might frighten the madeitallupyesterday spirit.

  4. Buccaneer says:

    Now Mr. Taibbi has told Mr. Jordan’s committee that an IRS agent showed up at his personal residence in New Jersey on March 9. That happens to be the same day Mr. Taibbi testified before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government about what he learned about Twitter. The taxman left a note instructing Mr. Taibbi to call the IRS four days later. Mr. Taibbi was told in a call with the agent that both his 2018 and 2021 tax returns had been rejected owing to concerns over identity theft.

  5. Buccaneer says:

    Not a single love media outlet running the Taibbi story, just letting everyone know you will get the Gillian Sneddon treatment if you go off the reservation. Interesting how well the alp have scrubbed the internet of Sneddon’s treatment too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *