Kirby at it again

[Contra Mundum]

Yes I have read his judgments, as I have of Barkwick and other HC Judges past and present, Brennan, Mason, Gaudron et al.

This guy is a twit.

Res Ipsa Loquitor.

Wow MCGreg impressive!

 

[MGREG]

Wow MCGreg impressive!

Well your not the only one who can wan.k.

As for ASIO, ostensibly that was the reason he raided ASIO, the real reason was to get the files of his comrades to see what information ASIO had on him.

And the reason you gave is another reason to see what a hypocritical bunch of drongoes the Whitlam government was made up of.

You are talking abou the so called Ustashi, I assume. About 20 old blokes on a farm pretending they were important. Yeah, real big threat.

Why didnt they bother raiding the left wing groups bloody buch of hypocrites.

Well those Eastern Block dictatorships got their come uppance, albeit briefly.

Keep on batting comrade.

The only good communist is a dead one.

 

[1jasonoz]

what little johnnie and his crew did was wonderful for our nation.......it's about time someone had the balls to stand up to those evil unions. if they had to bend a few rules to smash those retart unionists then so be it.........were better off.

our economy is going gang busters, johnnie brought home the bacon, it's a beautiful set of numbers, the j-curve is going in the right direction, it's the strict discipline we had to have.

Answer the question dubbo,

Does this mean that they will stop spending millions of dollars fighting FOI applications from people trying to find out whether or not the government actively supported an Australian company in breaking Federal laws? You know the one, the Patricks illegal lockout where an Australian company was found guilty by 10 out of 11 judges in breaking Commonwealth law, and was supported at the various court cases by the commonwealth Government. You know the one, the one where Patricks was forced to pay the MUA's $5 million legal costs, and $10 million in damages to people who had lost business due their illegal actions.

We know the one, the one where both Peter Scum bag Reith, and Little Johhny swore they new nothing about assisting Patricks in breaking the law, yet both have got a $250 million personal indemity insurance coverage, if the information ever comes out.

So we will be seeing the documents the federal court, the full bench of the federal court, say the government must handover, yet refuse to abide by the judgments of these courts, so it is now going to the high court, and costing us millions because of their resusal to abide by the court ruling.

 

[dugrene]

Kirby got to flex his muscle over these guys

New hope in gay refugee case
A Bangladeshi gay couple who had been refused protection visas by Australia’s Refugee Review Tribunal will have their case re-heard after the Tribunal’s decision was overturned by the High Court on Tuesday.

In a judgment hailed for its implications for international refugee law – and for gay men and lesbians seeking asylum in Australia – a 4-3 majority of High Court justices found that the Tribunal had erred by not considering what would happen if the men lived openly as a homosexual couple in Bangladesh. The men had argued they would suffer serious harm because of their homosexuality if they were returned home, but the Tribunal had determined they would not be persecuted if they conducted themselves discreetly..........


There is a fine line between interpreting law and formulating the process. Kirby is a master at balancing his agenda with the process.

 

[Mead]

Governments appoint the High Court judges, so they will always look to people who reflect their own political values.

One aspect of the issue here seems to be whether Kirkby should be allowed to express his views or not. As a key figure in our legal system, I don't have a problem with it. Still, by my reading of Kirkby's comments, he's just having a little bit of a dummy spit because the election result didn't fall in the way that he would have wished.

A final point is whether you believe that the High Court should be an activist court - in effect, making law rather than simply interpreting law. Personally, I'm not that comfortable with the former as it's the role of parliament to make the laws.

Remembering back to my days of (fairly basic) taxation law studies, Barwick held the view that individuals had the right to avoid paying taxes. But you can't put the blame simply on him. High Court decisions are group decisions and he held only one vote.

I've always thought the interpretation v making argument was a bit contrived. If a case gets to the high court, its because there isn't an extremely clear cut application of a statute or common law principle available-in that situation judges are always going to have to 'fill in the gaps' to adapt the existing law to the new situation- the result is always going to be law making.

As for Kirby and Murphy- the latter was dense, unqualified and very likely corrupt. That's not Kirby at all- whether or not people agree with his conclusions he's actually a pretty sharp cookie and knows what he's on about.

Personally, I don't have a problem with him being as vocal as he is- in doing so, he makes himself a target of people who don't agree with him, but well, thats his call- if he wants to have a higher public profile and as a result attract more criticism, its up to him.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Well your not the only one who can wan.k.

As for ASIO, ostensibly that was the reason he raided ASIO, the real reason was to get the files of his comrades to see what information ASIO had on him.

And the reason you gave is another reason to see what a hypocritical bunch of drongoes the Whitlam government was made up of.

You are talking abou the so called Ustashi, I assume. About 20 old blokes on a farm pretending they were important. Yeah, real big threat.

Why didnt they bother raiding the left wing groups bloody buch of hypocrites.

Well those Eastern Block dictatorships got their come uppance, albeit briefly.

Keep on batting comrade.

The only good communist is a dead one.

Yeh - agreed to my tendency to w.ank but I thought internet forums were for written auto eroticism!

They did not bother the left wing groups because they were not training with guns - most of them were trade union people who were too busy trying to get there members improved pay and conditions or burnt out hippies staging sit ins.

You obviously don't know many Coms because most of the ones I have met were/are very committed people including my dear departed dad who was a political refugee from those "harmless" Ustasha - so please dont lecture me about it!

The fact is the security services were hostile to left wing governments - have a look at the MI5 plot to unseat the Wilson Government - recently declassified documents reveal that there was a cell in MI5 that was agitating to get rid of Wilson - this is not Chile we are talking about but the so called seat of Western Decomcracy.

 

[agitator]

'Respect and trust'?.Why would anybody want to respect HIM?.He spoke like he was sucking on AJ's thing in public.Wasnt a 'Degenerate?',well i s'pose it's how you look at his type,i think.
But that's beside the point,back to Lionel Murphy,
IF he was a criminal,IF that is,why was he respected in legal circles here and overseas?.The only mistake he made,was the raid on ASIO headquaters.

is murphy the legal genius who gave us the family law court???........where left wing feminazis congegrate to seek their revenge on all those bastard men.

is this the place where women can tell the most outrageous lies about husbands because they dont have to take a legal oath and cant be charged with perjury??

is this the hell hole where men are routinely skewered by the feminazis for all their money and denied access to their children into the bargain??

yes your right, murphy's legal legacy will live on for decades in this country.

 

[Contra Mundum]

is murphy the legal genius who gave us the family law court???........where left wing feminazis congegrate to seek their revenge on all those bastard men.

is this the place where women can tell the most outrageous lies about husbands because they dont have to take a legal oath and cant be charged with perjury??

is this the hell hole where men are routinely skewered by the feminazis for all their money and denied access to their children into the bargain??

yes your right, murphy's legal legacy will live on for decades in this country.

Of course agitator the system of fault divorce was a much more sensible way of going about it - by the way you forgot to mention the fact that Lionel Murphy and Gough were seen on the beach the very day Harold Holt disappeared talking to a Chinese submarine commander.

 

[medusala]

yes your right, murphy's legal legacy will live on for decades in this country.

And which AG gave such wonderful advice re the Kemlani (sp) loan?

Why were they still investigating him when he became terminally ill? Why did Hawke try to cover it up permanently?

 

[Contra Mundum]

I've always thought the interpretation v making argument was a bit contrived. If a case gets to the high court, its because there isn't an extremely clear cut application of a statute or common law principle available-in that situation judges are always going to have to 'fill in the gaps' to adapt the existing law to the new situation- the result is always going to be law making.

As for Kirby and Murphy- the latter was dense, unqualified and very likely corrupt. That's not Kirby at all- whether or not people agree with his conclusions he's actually a pretty sharp cookie and knows what he's on about.

Personally, I don't have a problem with him being as vocal as he is- in doing so, he makes himself a target of people who don't agree with him, but well, thats his call- if he wants to have a higher public profile and as a result attract more criticism, its up to him.

Got to agree with you there Mead on the judicial activism point what the hell was Donohue v. Stevenson!!!!

 

[Shinboners]

I've always thought the interpretation v making argument was a bit contrived. If a case gets to the high court, its because there isn't an extremely clear cut application of a statute or common law principle available-in that situation judges are always going to have to 'fill in the gaps' to adapt the existing law to the new situation- the result is always going to be law making.

That's a fair enough point.

The point that I'm trying to make (and keep in mind that I'm no legal expert - I'm more of an interested bystander) is how far a judge is willing to stretch their interpretation of the law to achieve a result that they think is a just one. Of course, it might just be easier to ask how long a piece of string is.

 

[Bombers 2003]

is murphy the legal genius who gave us the family law court???........where left wing feminazis congegrate to seek their revenge on all those bastard men.

is this the place where women can tell the most outrageous lies about husbands because they dont have to take a legal oath and cant be charged with perjury??

is this the hell hole where men are routinely skewered by the feminazis for all their money and denied access to their children into the bargain??

yes your right, murphy's legal legacy will live on for decades in this country.

OK,but if men want to treat their wives as beasts of burden,Slaves,Whipping posts,sex toys,whores etc,well then they get what's COMING TO 'EM.