Kevin Boreham taught International Law at the ANU College of Law. Kevin’s first career was as an officer of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs.
@RichardHynes12@MFWitches This isn’t correct. If the Defendant’s counsel seek to discredit the P witnesses the P can then bring in evidence about the D’s character - called the tit-for-tat rule.
#AusVotes2022 Re Albo’s evolving stance on boat turn backs this was Keynes’ response when accused of inconsistency “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
@kylegriffin1 Abstentions on UNGA votes aren’t a cop out (which would be ‘going to the bathroom’ during the vote): abstaining means you agree with the principle in the Resolution but have some difficulty with the text.
@simonahac The Bill wasn’t a conscience vote because rights aren’t a subjective matter for individual opinion, unlike say euthanasia. They should be universally respected.
@GrogsGamut Govt concerns about implementing protection for transgender students should be met by passing them with date of entry into force postponed. No need to leave them out of the current Bill.
@7.30 If rights are ‘competitive’ let’s have a forum where the ‘competition’ can fairly and transparently take place rather than a public fight over one set of rights in which the most vocal pressure group wins its favoured right, ie a human rights act.
A generation of Supreme Court decisions could come down to an unnerving question, @mckaycoppins writes: Is Justice Brett Kavanaugh out for revenge? https://t.co/YjPkVas4rM
Calling USSC nerds, a brilliant article on where K's jurisprudence may be headed.
@LesStonehouse When I’m inclined to criticise someone’s political judgement I remind myself that I once voted for Mark Latham to be Prime Minister of Australia.