When you give your vote, to a MP and they go to Canberra on your behalf, you would expect them to guard their delegated power. Even though you may have voted for their opposition, you ought to be able to expect great things from those in high office. They are given one overriding power by the Standing Orders of the Parliament. That power is to rise to their feet and draw the attention of the Parliament to contempt of the power of both houses.

Standing Orders are the Rules of the Parliamentary court. In the Reps, a member may speak at any time on a matter of privilege. SO63, and by Standing Orders 95 and 96, any member may raise a breach of Statute in the House as contempt. When raised it suspends all other business in the Parliament. Any Australian Judge, who legislates, would be in contempt of Parliament, and under S72 (i) Constitution can be removed by the executive, on Parliamentary authority.

Any member who wants to get some National attention, should look at S 33 High Court of Australia Act 1979 and then the High Court Rules 2004. Parliament has mandated that all process issued out of the High Court shall be in the name of the Queen. Justices Gleeson, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon, aided and abetted by CM Doogan, Chief Executive and Principal Registrar, have prescribed forms for use in the High Court that do not have the name of the Queen on them. Has one member of either the House or the Senate raised this contempt of Parliament in either House. It would appear not. Is it any wonder we are poorly governed. Even the High Court will not show respect for Parliament.

If seven Judges and a Chief Registrar will not respect the Act that creates their institution, what chance have we got of getting justice. Parliament can huff and puff, however while its allows Judges to reign, its efforts are just puffery. Go to your local Member or Senators web page at www.aph.gov.au and ask them why they tolerate this

Lets hope Judges and their associates read OLO. When a Notice is published in a Public Forum, it has been a principle of law, for hundreds of years, that all persons have seen it. It has also been a principle of criminal law, that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but in reality, that is not quite right. There is so much Statute law out there, that a jury has been instructed on occasions, that unless the law is brought to the attention of the offender, he can be excused for not obeying it, but only once.

This was the principle of the law of mercy, and it was extended to all of England when only a few could read, by reading Statute law in Churches on a Sunday. The Magna Carta was read three times a year in every Anglican church in England, and this was deemed sufficient notice.

Every Judge and Magistrate who is still denying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should look at S 268:12 Commonwealth Criminal Code. The Parliament has made disobedience to Article 14 of the Covenant, an offence punishable by seventeen years imprisonment.

Section 19 (8) Criminal Code Act 1899 (Q) set out that principle, that a first offender on conviction, was entitled to a suspended sentence, except for murder, treason or rape.

Article 14 says: All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. Today no one is equal to a Judge. A Judge is not a court. He is a Court, maybe, but he must presume a person innocent, by article 14 (2) and that casts the onus on an accuser. State Judges are bound also, by the Covenant. Article 50 states: the provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without limitations or exceptions.

The associates to Judges are their ears and eyes. They had better watch out or their boss could follow Einfeld into the enjoyment of the hospitality of Her Majesty. To use a Queensland term, the lot of them should be bushed and a new lot installed

Dear Steven,

Prejudiced thought always involves the use of
stereotypes - a rigid mental image that
summarizes whatever is believed to be typical
about a group.

The essence of prejudiced thinking, however,
is that the stereotype is not checked
against reality.

Sonia Sotomayor - may have used the "hispanic,"
card to her "advantage," but it doesn't change
the fact that she is a New York born daughter of
Puerto Rican parents - a veteran of the Federal
Bench who did attend Princeton and Yale en route
to the highest echelos of the legal profession.
And she's been nominated to the Supreme Court
because the President of the US sees her as an
asset.

And, as I pointed out to KMB, hers will be only
one voice out of a panel of nine.

Foxy,

If I thought I could gain an advantage by playing on my gender or ethnicity I'd probably succumb to temptation and do it. I'm not blaming Sotomayor for taking advantage of the system; but neither am I going to be taken in by the spin that surrounds her nomination.

Frankly, what troubles me most about Sotomayor is this statement:

"Whether born from experience or INHERENT PHYSIOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL DIFFERENCES, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and NATIONAL ORIGINS may and will make a difference in our judging…" (Capitalisation added)

Now what exactly does that mean Foxy?

What is it if not, in your own words, "Prejudiced thought [that] always involves the use of stereotypes - a rigid mental image that summarizes whatever is believed to be typical about a group."?

What concerns me about Sotomayor is not so much that she occasionally played the race / ethnicity card as that, judging by her words, she seems to be the sort of person who engages in ethnic profiling. Many ethnic profilers attended Princeton and Yale and attained the "highest echelons of the legal profession".

President Obama may have nominated her because he thought she was suitable but, given the importance to him of the Latino vote, it would be naïve to dismiss the notion that Sotomayor's ethnicity played no role in her selection.

Anyway it will be interesting to see how this plays out in her Senate hearings.

I suspect that you occasionally make stuff up, PtB.

>>The Magna Carta was read three times a year in every Anglican church in England, and this was deemed sufficient notice<<

Do you have a definitive source for this?

According to the American Law Library, "Magna Carta was read twice yearly in both county courts and cathedrals" from around the end of the thirteenth century. Quite a long time before the advent of Anglican churches, I fancy.

Dear Steven,

You're not alone in your concerns about
Sonia Sotomayor. There's quite a few
conservative Republicans in the Senate
that are equally concerned. And as you
say it will be interesting to see how
things progress with her nomination.

I'm sure that all of the 9 judges that
make up the Supreme Court - have
their own various ethnic backgrounds
and baggage. However as The New York Times
has pointed out, "The role of a jurist is
to apply the law even-handedly, despite
their own feelings or personal or
political preferences. With her vast
experience Sonia Sotomayor is well aware
of this - and what her duties will be.

In fact she's stated, "I don't believe we
should bend the Constitution under any
circumstance. It says what it says.
We should do honour to it."

In other words she believes in, "Equal
justice under the Law."

I feel that in a country like the US -
with such a vast mix of people - their court
of final appeal - the Supreme Court needs to
have a fair cross-section of jurists from
the nations cultural backgrounds represented
if a fair and reasonable judgement is to be
passed. But that's just my personal opinion.

Sonia Sotomayor is going to be put through the
mill and scrutinised thoroughly even before
she undergoes the public session with the
Senators. She will have to divulge not only
personal information but she will have to
provide copies of all her writings, speeches,
interviews, opinions, and so on.

As I wrote to KMB - there's little to be
concerned about.