lipstick, heels and robes

Lawyer - Female, ethnic and a mum. Any more and you'd know who I am.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@Jarek_73_ @hughriminton Dude you need to back away from the internet, go outside and touch some grass.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@MoistenedTart @Juanita98859083 @LiangRhea Voting is on the weekend, polling places are plentiful (and at your local school + a few other places).

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 Then what you’re actually saying is that there may be concerns about how the legislation governing the Voice will operate. Which is a different issue to the constitutional one.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 “Composition, functions, powers and procedures”. That’s what 3 is there to determine.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 That’s why 3 exists

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 🙄. The dispute has to start somewhere. So - legislation is enacted creating the voice and its powers. A different piece of legislation is before parliament. The voice wants to make representations. Can it? -first look at the powers granted by the legislation creating the Voice

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 Then why does part 3 exist? For fun?

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 I never claimed otherwise. I’m saying that you don’t understand how a dispute can be brought. There must be a basis for a dispute for a start.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 So what you are saying is that part (3) of the amendment has no work to do. That any limits placed on the Voice by legislation will be challenged despite the very wide discretion that (3) provides?

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 Huh? How does that establish any of what you’re saying?

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 You really don’t understand how a dispute is litigated do you?

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 You actually haven’t read the amendments have you? Because 1) it has a “may” provision meaning that the HC cannot require the Voice to act in a certain way
2) the whole of part (3) applies meaning parliament sets the parameters within which the voice operates.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 That’s actually impossible. It’s both not within the terms of the constitutional amendment and not within the power of the High Court. It really reflects a complete misunderstanding of what a court actually does, and a misreading of the proposed amendment.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 So the argument would be about, potentially, the legislation creating the Voice, an actual representation that is made and whether or not there is evidence that it was considered. Which is unremarkable.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@KevinMetcalfe_ @FreethinkRight @farrm51 An implied right to do what though? What bogeyman are you scared of?

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@FreethinkRight @farrm51 What’s likely to be challenged though?

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@Razeurion @lhjh70 @dragonandtonic @liberalismau @croyboy47 @JNampijinpa The constitution and human rights? What next - are you going to start talking about the founding fathers? The First and Second Amendment?

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@Razeurion @dragonandtonic @liberalismau @croyboy47 @JNampijinpa They don’t. That’s not what the voice is.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@culturaltutor And stories like this is why I follow you.

[lipstick, heels and robes @Afembar]

@dieworkwear A colleague walked past me, waved and said “how now brown cow”. I’m south Asian and hindu. He was so embarrassed and apologetic.