Judge's pay referendum

FreudianSlippers

ResearchWill wrote: »

As in any legal point it is the question asked that is more important than the answer given. Example is any lawyer is asked could the reduction in judges pay in this way be challenged? The answer would be yes. Would the challange be successful would lead to a different answer.

Agreed, that's why my point is that I doubt the AG would have said cut-and-dry that this would be unconstitutional. I believe it's the Minister attempting to "pass the buck" in a way.

swordofislam

How can an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional once ratified?

If the Irish people make retroactive law through a constitutional amendment or remove the presumption of innocence from redheads through a constitutional amendment that amendment is constitutional.

Natural law was at the core of Irish jurisprudence for decades before 1995.
Now nothing is at the core of Irish jurisprudence except a blind amoral rules engine type legalism.
There is no rights based interpretive methodology that transcends the written document other than appeal to other documents accessible via constitutional provision. And this would not be accessible if the amendment excluded that option.

Therefore there is no theoretical standard or platonic ideal to which any one amendment can be compared and any mention of an unconstitutional amendment is oxymoronic.

ResearchWill

swordofislam wrote: »

How can an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional once ratified?

If the Irish people make retroactive law through a constitutional amendment or remove the presumption of innocence from redheads through a constitutional amendment that amendment is constitutional.

Natural law was at the core of Irish jurisprudence for decades before 1995.
Now nothing is at the core of Irish jurisprudence except a blind amoral rules engine type legalism.
There is no rights based interpretive methodology that transcends the written document other than appeal to other documents accessible via constitutional provision. And this would not be accessible if the amendment excluded that option.

Therefore there is no theoretical standard or platonic ideal to which any one amendment can be compared and any mention of an unconstitutional amendment is oxymoronic.

The AG of California would disagree with you. He challenged the making of Gay marriage unconstitutional. I believe that if you red head amendment came in it would be open to the SC to say the amendment flew in the face of the basic aims of the constitution. Remember the SC is the final decider on what is constitutional. Also over time there views may change. If senator Norris took his challange now he may very well win, remember both HC and SC said no to his argument it was the ECHR who said yes. Remember the US constitution has been interpreted to allow slavery and not allow it, to allow segregation and not allow it.

FreudianSlippers

swordofislam wrote: »

How can an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional once ratified?

If the Irish people make retroactive law through a constitutional amendment or remove the presumption of innocence from redheads through a constitutional amendment that amendment is constitutional.

Natural law was at the core of Irish jurisprudence for decades before 1995.
Now nothing is at the core of Irish jurisprudence except a blind amoral rules engine type legalism.
There is no rights based interpretive methodology that transcends the written document other than appeal to other documents accessible via constitutional provision. And this would not be accessible if the amendment excluded that option.

Therefore there is no theoretical standard or platonic ideal to which any one amendment can be compared and any mention of an unconstitutional amendment is oxymoronic.

I don't believe anyone said this amendment is unconstitutional. It flies in the face of separation of powers, which our (and every other) modern democracy is founded upon.

The issue here is quite simple. The alleged unconstitutionality of altering judges' pay via taxes and pension levy is incorrect - this negating the need for this amendment.

Everyone (that I've heard) who disagrees with the 29th Amendment Bill agrees that if there is no provision for lowering the salary based on other specific public sector employees, then we would need an amendment; however the aim and scope of this amendment is far too ambiguous and vests entirely too much discretionary power in the Oireachtas.

recedite

ResearchWill wrote: »

all the Government had to do was pass a bill with 2 sections one dealing with general civil and public service the second section dealing with judges and then either let the president refer the second section or let it be challenged in due course. If that had been done and passed by SC there would have been no issue, if refused by SC then we would have had a clear mandate for amendment.

ResearchWill wrote: »

As in any legal point it is the question asked that is more important than the answer given. Example is any lawyer is asked could the reduction in judges pay in this way be challenged? The answer would be yes. Would the challange be successful would lead to a different answer.

Potentially it could have been challenged on the definition of remuneration. By common definition that refers to gross pay before tax, but some beligerent judge could have claimed that a levy is not the same as a tax and therefore his remuneration was being reduced. Now if that were really the case, half the people in the country would probably have to sign new employment contracts at every budget because their remuneration had changed.
So, lets say the beligerent judge takes it to the Supreme Court, where most likely he is shot down, because they are thinking of the bigger picture; the separation of powers.
If SC agreed with the beligerent and declared the (net) pay cut unconstitutional we would have a valid reason for taking it to the people via referendum, albeit one with more precise wording.
If SC agreed with the govt. we would have it enshrined in case law that levies are considered taxes for these purposes.
The previous AG should have known all that, so really I only see two reasons for his advice; either his lazy short cut to avoid any controversy has thrown us into deeper turmoil, or there was some conspiracy to create a pretext for this referendum, giving more sweeping powers to impose pay cuts on the judiciary even when the public sector as a whole is not affected by them.

recedite

It would be very interesting to know what the current AG's view is on this.
She could have told Shatter that there was nothing to stop the FG govt. applying the levies to judges now. Maybe he said he'd rather go for the referendum anyway, just to show which arm of the state is boss.

carveone

recedite wrote: »

The previous AG should have known all that, so really I only see two reasons for his advice; either his lazy short cut to avoid any controversy has thrown us into deeper turmoil, or there was some conspiracy to create a pretext for this referendum, giving more sweeping powers to impose pay cuts on the judiciary even when the public sector as a whole is not affected by them.

Or the AG was asked a specific question to which he gave a response that was correct in law but was then used by the government to start a referendum process. Or something

As ResearchWill has said there were roads to follow first - pass a bill and let the president refer it to the SC. That's what she's there for. I try to avoid conspiracy theories, preferring ignorance to malice, but in combination with the 30th amendment I'm sliding towards the latter.

swordofislam

carveone wrote: »

Or the AG was asked a specific question to which he gave a response that was correct in law but was then used by the government to start a referendum process. Or something

It was the last AG who gave that opinion and the current government who are putting forward this referendum before the people.
A complicated conspiracy indeed.

swordofislam

NeedAnAnswer wrote: »

Can someone please tell me how is a judge's pay currently set? Who sets it or how is it currently set?

It's set by the government of the day. The government claim that they can increase judges pay but not reduce it.

swordofislam

recedite wrote: »

So, lets say the beligerent judge takes it to the Supreme Court, where most likely he is shot down, because they are thinking of the bigger picture; the separation of powers.

He might have been shot down he might not have been shot down. I don't think that the Irish Supreme Court would see it as its role to look at the bigger picture and ignore the plain wording of the constitution. There isn't some overarching moral or jurisprudential framework that they use to assist them in interpretation. There used to be but now its gone. We use a literalist rules engine type approach.

FreudianSlippers

swordofislam wrote: »

NeedAnAnswer wrote: »

Can someone please tell me how is a judge's pay currently set? Who sets it or how is it currently set?

It's set by the government of the day. The government claim that they can increase judges pay but not reduce it.

It's based in statute as previously mentioned. They cannot reduce a sitting judge's pay but they can impose pension levies or taxes.

It's clear that the body responsible for raising and lowering judicial pay should be independent of both the legislative and judicial branch.

Either that or it should be tied by amendment to a specific category or class of public sector employee, not the nebulous wording of the current amendment

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

He might have been shot down he might not have been shot down. I don't think that the Irish Supreme Court would see it as its role to look at the bigger picture and ignore the plain wording of the constitution. There isn't some overarching moral or jurisprudential framework that they use to assist them in interpretation. There used to be but now its gone. We use a literalist rules engine type approach.

No, they don't - they have regard to the overarching principles as described in the constitution. It's not as if you could use Bunreacht in a "literalist rues engine type approach" - if that were possible, you wouldn't need the Supreme Court.

Deference to God is not the only possible jurisprudential framework, any more than it's the only possible moral one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

swordofislam wrote: »

He might have been shot down he might not have been shot down. I don't think that the Irish Supreme Court would see it as its role to look at the bigger picture and ignore the plain wording of the constitution. There isn't some overarching moral or jurisprudential framework that they use to assist them in interpretation. There used to be but now its gone. We use a literalist rules engine type approach.

No, they don't - they have regard to the overarching principles as described in the constitution. It's not as if you could use Bunreacht in a "literalist rues engine type approach" - if that were possible, you wouldn't need the Supreme Court.

Deference to God is not the only possible jurisprudential framework, any more than it's the only possible moral one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

+1

A literal approach is but one method of constitutional interpretation and, IMO, usually the incorrect one.

Godge

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't believe anyone said this amendment is unconstitutional. It flies in the face of separation of powers, which our (and every other) modern democracy is founded upon.

The issue here is quite simple. The alleged unconstitutionality of altering judges' pay via taxes and pension levy is incorrect - this negating the need for this amendment.

Everyone (that I've heard) who disagrees with the 29th Amendment Bill agrees that if there is no provision for lowering the salary based on other specific public sector employees, then we would need an amendment; however the aim and scope of this amendment is far too ambiguous and vests entirely too much discretionary power in the Oireachtas.

I believe you are right that the pension levy could have been applied to the judges but that moment has passed. However, the pay cuts introduced in January 2010 could not be applied to the judges, therefore a referendum is necessary.

I have noted the points you raise and the potential for ambbiguity but I will still be voting yes. Why? Quite simply, there may well be a threat to separation of powers and I agree that the judiciary and the legislature should be separate but both should be ultimately answerable to the people, that is why we are a democracy. The clear public opinion for the last few years has been that the judiciary should share the pain that everyone else is going through. There have been voluntary mechanisms put in place but a substantial minority of judges have ignored these mechanisms thus ignoring the will of the people. Like FF at the last election, the people will need to have their say about judges' pay and this referendum is that opportunity.

oh, if someone wants to come along with a more nuanced proposal in a couple of years, then do so, in the meantime, they can eat bread like the rest of us, not cake.

swordofislam

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, they don't - they have regard to the overarching principles as described in the constitution. It's not as if you could use Bunreacht in a "literalist rues engine type approach" - if that were possible, you wouldn't need the Supreme Court.

That's interesting. What are the overarching principles of interpretation described in the constitution?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Deference to God is not the only possible jurisprudential framework, any more than it's the only possible moral one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Natural law need not derive from deference to God. It could be held that human beings have certain rights that inhere in them by virtue of their humanity and that these rights are justiciable. This is not the position in Ireland.

dermot_sheehan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A previous poster claims Gwynne-Morgan says he will be voting "yes" on both; which I find hard to accept.
That being said, they offered no proof to affirm this.


With the caveat that I do not believe that Gwynne-Morgan would say that voting yes is correct; I believe that if anyone is correct it would be an expert in Constitutional law and Separation of Powers.


Those both amend The Courts of Justice Act, 1924 if I'm correct?

The relevant bit of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 (s. 13) was repealed since the 1961 supplemental provisions and constitution and establishment act established the court system under the 1937 constitution, the defect that the court system as existing then was still the courts system of the irish free state having been identified in a 1959 supreme court judgement.

An interesting argument is that s. 46A of the supplemental provisions act is unconstitutional since it purports to make agreements with civil servants effective as law in increasing the salaries of judges. It would have been interesting for the government to introduce the levy for the judges, and then when this was challenged, argue s. 46A is unconstitutional so therefore the only salaries that are paid to judges in accordance with law were the one's set at the 2001 level.

Regarding amending the constitution, Re: Abortion Information Bill 1995 is clear that the soverign will of the people in referendum can be used to amend the constitution in any form provided the formalities specified in the constitution are complied with. This is in contrast with some jurisprudential theory in the 1980's that some parts of the constitution were based on natural law and could never be amended and the german constituional view that some principles of the constitution are unamendable for all time.

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

That's interesting. What are the overarching principles of interpretation described in the constitution?

The earlier articles, essentially, particularly the first few.

swordofislam wrote: »

Natural law need not derive from deference to God. It could be held that human beings have certain rights that inhere in them by virtue of their humanity and that these rights are justiciable. This is not the position in Ireland.

Fair enough. Your concerns, however, seem to be specifically religious, unless I'm misinterpreting your earlier posts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Godge wrote: »

However, the pay cuts introduced in January 2010 could not be applied to the judges.

Why not?

Godge wrote: »

Quite simply, there may well be a threat to separation of powers and I agree that the judiciary and the legislature should be separate but both should be ultimately answerable to the people, that is why we are a democracy.

Hold on a second - isn't the point of the judicial branch of any government that it operates independently? What use is the law if judges, in being "ultimately answerable to the people", base their decisions on the whims of public opinion?

In response to your democracy comment, consider the following thought experiment. The people of Ireland vote on a plebiscite that will allow members of the police to shoot dead any member of the Travelling community who refuses to vacate a site when told to. It is passed by a 60% majority. Carnage ensues as members of the police enact the people's wishes. But the 60% agreed to this - it's then democratic and fair, no?

Good loser

Godge wrote: »

I believe you are right that the pension levy could have been applied to the judges but that moment has passed. However, the pay cuts introduced in January 2010 could not be applied to the judges, therefore a referendum is necessary.

I have noted the points you raise and the potential for ambbiguity but I will still be voting yes. Why? Quite simply, there may well be a threat to separation of powers and I agree that the judiciary and the legislature should be separate but both should be ultimately answerable to the people, that is why we are a democracy. The clear public opinion for the last few years has been that the judiciary should share the pain that everyone else is going through. There have been voluntary mechanisms put in place but a substantial minority of judges have ignored these mechanisms thus ignoring the will of the people. Like FF at the last election, the people will need to have their say about judges' pay and this referendum is that opportunity.

oh, if someone wants to come along with a more nuanced proposal in a couple of years, then do so, in the meantime, they can eat bread like the rest of us, not cake.

Excellent stuff Godge. We are where we are. The broad thrusts of the amendments are fine.

When some people get their hands (excluding the vested interests) on a
debateable issue they don't know where to stop. If alternative amendments were proposed they would have an equal number of objections.

Reminds me a lot of that 'interminable snowman' Ganley and his objections to Lisbon.

About time the Govt took on the vested interests of the legal profession in all its manifestations.

What's absolutely stunning is that 16 (I believe) of the Independants in the Dail oppose the measures. Delighted I didn't vote for any of those wasters.

Milk & Honey

Why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge?

FreudianSlippers

I keep seeing the phrase "vested interests" - I've asked a few times now, but no answer:

Who are these people with vested interests and what are their interests?

Lockstep

Wandered into this thread but FreudianSlippers has already covered everything I had to say on the matter.

TL: DR-it's populism which will have little effect on the country's finances but be a worrying attack on judicial independence.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In response to your democracy comment, consider the following thought experiment. The people of Ireland vote on a plebiscite that will allow members of the police to shoot dead any member of the Travelling community who refuses to vacate a site when told to. It is passed by a 60% majority. Carnage ensues as members of the police enact the people's wishes. But the 60% agreed to this - it's then democratic and fair, no?

Or Proposition 8 in California where people voted to strip away gays of their ability to get married.

We live in a liberal democracy where the majority rules but the minority have their rights protected. To have otherwise is mob rule.

glic71rods46t0

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I keep seeing the phrase "vested interests" - I've asked a few times now, but no answer:

Who are these people with vested interests and what are their interests?

It seems fairly obvious that the most recent reference to "vested interests" on the thread are:
Referendum on judges pay: Judges and those hoping to be appointed to the judiciary (Fine Gael and Labour supporting members of the legal profession I suppose - independence how are ya?)
Referendum on oireachtas inquiries: That would include the array of barristers and solicitors who have been gorging themselves for years in the trough of public funds spent on tribunerals

FreudianSlippers

Firstly, thanks for answering the question; you're the first

fp4zwk71ongl59 wrote: »

It seems fairly obvious that the most recent reference to "vested interests" on the thread are:
Referendum on judges pay: Judges and those hoping to be appointed to the judiciary (Fine Gael and Labour supporting members of the legal profession I suppose - independence how are ya?)

I just fail to see how the legal profession has an interest in Judges' pay, 99.5% of solicitors and/or barristers will never be a judge.

A very good post on this topic:

ResearchWill wrote: »

There are currently approx 13k lawyers and about 150 judges, do the maths on the chances of an appointment. I know Judges, as a working Barrister, and most judges take a pay cut to become a judge, the advantage is that the pension is really good. I for one believe the judiciary have served us well, 85% took the pay cuts requested of them, and all this debacle has done is to force the Judicary into a terrible position, to protest is seen as not taking some of the pain, even though the protest is in relation to the control of government. The Judicary have said they agree with the principle but they want an independent body to set the reduction.

As the current proposal the goverenment can change judges pay in line with a class of persons in the interests of the state. What is to stop the government to set the class as judges only, a reduction of 50%, at a time when a number of important cases in relation to human rights are going through the courts.

A HC or SC decision can cost the state millions, army deafness, legal aid, social welfare payments, does anyone really want the defendant in the case able to reduce the judges salary with little or no problem.

Referendum on oireachtas inquiries: That would include the array of barristers and solicitors who have been gorging themselves for years in the trough of public funds spent on tribunerals

Two very good posts from the 30th Amendment thread in legal discussion that mirror my own views, so I'll let them do the speaking for me:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Don't worry, the Irish people as a group have traditionally been suspicious of the well educated, and they like nothing better, when being told about important prinicples of democracy to "stick it up the noses of our betters". This is true of European referenda (space aliens abducting babies makes me vote no to Lisbon) and is especially true when they can suggest an ulterior motive on the part of those who are basing their argument in logic and reason rather than in suspicion and half baked notions. If you open your eyes a bit more, it's not just lawyers who are sounding notes of caution, but journalists, academics, pretty much anyone with a 3rd level degree or other education in politics and civil liberties.

I find it strange that lawyers are lumped into a group. You're suspicious of lawyers having views on this, but if lawyers who weren't involved in any tribunals, are unlikely to be involved in tribunals in Future and have no vested interest in it, how are their views tainted?

Plus, as I said above, this amendment just means more tribunals, more lawyers fees and more subsequent challenges. This referendum is, if anything a meal ticket for lawyers. What honest to goodness greedy barrister or fatcat solicitor wouldn't vote yes. Because the tribunals are over one way or another, but now there will be new shiney ill defined inquiries.

Ucd have set out a guideance note for the referendum and one of the many valid points they make is that there is no guarantee that these oireachtas inquiries will be any quicker or cheaper. After all, the oireachtas will need it's own presenting lawyers, anyone whose reputation is at stake is entitled to fair procedures ie a lawyer or three and challenge after challenge will delay them for years. Given that politicians have constituents to keep happy, they won't have enough time to deal with these and the inquiries will either get longer or they will fizzle out.

So you can take it to the bank that any lawyer who is against this is not doing so out of self interest.

I really believe that if the bar council and law society were to endorse both referenda the people of this great nation of saints and scholars would vote no just to spite them.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is nothing short of misinformed.

I haven't got exact figures so let's take massively overstated figures so it doesn't seem like I am making them suit my argument.

There are more than 2,500 barristers in this country. Let's say that the combined number of barristers who have worked on the tribunals is 250-500. I should note that I think that this is a massive overstatement. Regardless let's take those figures. That means that 80-90% of barristers, and an even higher percentage of solicitors, have never and will never see a single cent from the tribunals. So what is it that makes you think that legal professionals are somehow guarding their own interests? The vast majority of solicitors and barristers do work so far removed from tribunals of inquiry that it barely even seems to be the same profession.

It's the equivalent of saying that a clerk working in a bank can't express an opinion about the Chief Executive of AIB because, sure, the people are sick of the banks and their big pay cheques.

I just don't buy/understand this "vested interest" in regards to the legal profession - it's a very populist stance IMO. Sure, blame the lawyers even if it makes no sense!

FreudianSlippers

Interesting article today in TheJournal.ie


Column: Cutting judges’ pay has a price – and it’s not worth it

WHAT VERY FEW people – media, political or otherwise – have focused on in the past number of weeks is that the upcoming presidential election is to be served with a side order of referenda. And one of the two proposed amendments is rather galling (actually, they both are, but to be angry about both simultaneously would become rather muddled. So let’s focus on judges’ pay this time around).
The government would like your permission to amend the constitution. They are currently not allowed to decrease the pay of judges. You might remember the kerfuffle and requests for judges to voluntarily stump up a percentage of their pay a ways back. Some did, some didn’t and the media duly reported their numbers at arbitrary and pointless intervals with obligatory subtext from which you could infer messages like ‘what a bunch of gits those rich old judges are’.
The fact is that we have and do spend money on a lot of pointless things in this country, and every now and then someone cops it and some drop in the ocean is targeted. Only, when the protection of judges’ pay was targeted, it wasn’t targeting spending on pointless things, rather it was targeting something behind which stands stacks of logic and reasoning. Yet, because for once a government could say ‘well actually, it’s not our fault that we can’t do anything about that one’, they did.
What we have seen so far with regard to this amendment is little debate, even less understanding and a complete lack of acknowledgement of the gravity of the matter from all sides. When you do take the time to read up on the proposition, you should find that the arguments for voting ‘no’ build up faster than you can say ‘we’ve been had’.
Firstly, symbolism would triumph at the expense of the protection of the legal system. The reality is that cutting judges pay might, according to figures quoted by Minister for Justice Alan Shatter in The Irish Times three months ago, save us around €5.5 million per year. The per year part of that should be taken with the knowledge that it applies only to serving judges because new appointments can be brought on stream at a lower salary level anyway. Essentially, it’s a problem that will go away with time, unlike messing with your constitution for the sake of €5.5 million. €5.5 million, with the mess we’re in?


‘It’s like saying your child was mostly eaten by a shark’

Were I to suggest an equivalency for the sake of analogy, that’s like saying your child was mostly eaten by a shark but you saved an arm. What you’ve saved is barely worth saving, and you’ve put yourself in danger to get it back. Yes, every little helps, and the government are eroding plenty of cornerstones of belief, cut by cut, from decreasing SNA’s in schools which compromises a child’s right to an education (and often by extension, their right to dignity and so many other things) to giving themselves the right to reduce the pay of judges which compromises the standing of the judiciary by putting their fate in the hands of the Oireachtas in a way that it never was before.
The difference here is that for once you don’t have to march or write letters or get your injustice in the papers and then still potentially suffer anyway. This wrong was considered so wrong, it is thought so stringently that it should not happen, that it has been given protection in the Constitution, and we are presented with that very rare situation in which if the people decide that they don’t want it, it ain’t happening, and there’s stuff all the government can do about it.
Second of all, we can look to the origins and evolution of the situation. The target is arbitrary. Sure, maybe judges’ pay should be cut in line with other pay cuts, but given the solid standing of the reasons why the government didn’t have that power, who perpetrated the witch hunt? It might be easy to look to the media, but it’s also accurate. Find an upper middle class grouping, tell lower middle class people, working class people, unemployed and overtaxed people that they’re being jipped by same, toss all of them into a cauldron and stir. It’s all too easy to upset people who are struggling by showing them the false injustice of someone who isn’t.


‘Oh no wait, it’s an Irish government’

It’s a cut the government have the people on side for so they’re primed to go ahead and make it happen. Surely, surely, they will acknowledge the importance of dealing with a constitutional matter? Surely they’ll farm it out to an independent body, create one, recognise why they ought to tread carefully? Not put themselves in a position of power over what should be an independent judiciary? Oh no wait, it’s an Irish government. What they’ve actually done is present us with a poorly-worded amendment that is as ambiguous as it is insulting.
Judges pay may be decreased by ‘proportionate reductions’ if the pay of others of a comparative class who are also paid from public money is also reduced. Oh can it? Great. So is that a percentage? Is there a limit to the cut? What’s a comparative class? And why are you the one cutting it, Oireachtas? Don’t you get how very much lacking in impartiality you are? Don’t you know anything about the importance of the separation of powers and why these protections were enshrined in our constitution in the first place?
Worse still, that same media who stirred us up to be annoyed about the situation are nowhere to be seen in analysing the proposed constitutional amendment. They’re running around after the seven wonders of the ancient world that are contesting the presidency and trying to stir up their latest round of acrimony (easy to stir, it must be said) and focussing on a position of little power while the threat to positions of real power seem to bother them but not at all.
Oh sure, Morning Ireland had the head of the Referendum Commission on, but if you listen to Morning Ireland you’re probably already politically aware, and we’ve got those ads and those pamphlets in the post, but where’s the debate? Where’s the outrage at being handed something substandard? Where’s our concern for the failings of this candidate for change that we’re supposed to vote yes to? The government are failing us, the media are failing us and we’re failing ourselves.


‘You don’t stand to benefit’

So thirdly, if we acknowledge that the Oireachtas shouldn’t have the power to cut judges pay in order to maintain the integrity of our legal system, but we might also say that judges pay in itself should be cut in line with similar cuts, where do our options lie? Well actually, we find ourselves in agreement with the judiciary. They wrote a 12-page document on the matter, objecting to the wording of the amendment and the manner in which the cuts are to be made but crucially, did not show as much concern for the cuts themselves. They produced that document in July, before the final wording of the amendment was agreed, and yet we find ourselves poised to vote on what remains a flawed proposition.
If your child was mostly eaten by a shark and there’s nothing you can do about what’s gone, then maybe you should look at who the shark represented in that analogy and not be so concerned with saving a severed arm. Vote ‘yes’ to the judicial pay amendment and the salary of the most senior judges will be cut by around 23%. The state coffers will be richer to the tune of €5.5 million per year, for a few years. But not your coffers. You’re not the shark, the state is. You don’t stand to benefit. You’ll still suffer cuts and taxes and degradation of services. Taking money from judges doesn’t mean anyone is being saved from a nasty nip/tuck budget. Worse still, not only are you no better off but in fact you’re worse off, because now you live in a state where the separation of powers doesn’t seem so important anymore.


‘Cold comfort, so send back the plate’

What’s been served up in the form of the judicial pay amendment is a not-even-particularly-well-presented attempt at cold comfort, so send back the plate. They can’t kick you out of the national restaurant they can only try again and present something hotter next time around because you’re a paying customer and you’re paying bloody dearly.
Yes to making cuts at the top instead of the bottom and yes to reform but no to tokenism, no to half-measures, no to compromising the Constitution, no to giving the Oireachtas power it shouldn’t have, no to a lack of debate, no to a shoddy effort by the Referendum Commission, no to being treated like you will lap up any old crap that’s put in front of you. This proposed amendment is nobody’s best work, D- for effort but can do better, and it’s not good enough when it’s the work of the state who owes us a damn better offering.
Perhaps there has been no outcry because we’re too busy watching the seven ring circus that is the presidential race, or perhaps we just don’t care because we think it’s only to do with taking a few quid off some Mr Justice we’re never likely to meet and nobody gets all stirred up about protecting the overinflated pay of an upper middle class lawman who hasn’t felt the bite of recession since his favourite €200-a-plate fundraiser was cancelled due to poor ticket sales when there are more important things.
But actually, it’s about Bunreacht na hEireann, flawed and all as it’s been known to be, and you ought to care about that, because it’s not only Dana’s blanky or some last bastion against the forward march of Europe, it has some ideals in there that we used to stand for and we don’t need a recession of intellect to add to the economic one.
Sinéad Keogh is Commander-in-Chief of pop culture blog Culch.ie and a regular print and broadcast contributor. She edits books as her main job and likes politics, poker and knitting. She can be found on twitter @sineadkeogh.

glic71rods46t0

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Firstly, thanks for answering the question; you're the first


I just fail to see how the legal profession has an interest in Judges' pay, 99.5% of solicitors and/or barristers will never be a judge.

A very good post on this topic:




Two very good posts from the 30th Amendment thread in legal discussion that mirror my own views, so I'll let them do the speaking for me:






I just don't buy/understand this "vested interest" in regards to the legal profession - it's a very populist stance IMO. Sure, blame the lawyers even if it makes no sense!

There is quite a whiff of eliteism in those posts.
I guess many people, in relation to judicial pay, would like to ensure a key principle of a republic - that all citizens are equal under the law. The present situation highlights that certain citizens of the republic are placed above the will of the people - that should not be permitted and I will vote accordingly as will a majority of those voting according to polls. I am comfortable with that

glic71rods46t0

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Interesting article today in TheJournal.ie


Column: Cutting judges’ pay has a price – and it’s not worth it

AFAIK it is frowned upon to make such posts in this forum without adding your own opinion. I would be happy to discuss the if you could add more of an opinion than "interesting"

FreudianSlippers

fp4zwk71ongl59 wrote: »

There is quite a whiff of eliteism in those posts.
I guess many people, in relation to judicial pay, would like to ensure a key principle of a republic - that all citizens are equal under the law. The present situation highlights that certain citizens of the republic are placed above the will of the people - that should not be permitted and I will vote accordingly as will a majority of those voting according to polls. I am comfortable with that

Interesting, the "vested interests" aspect seems to be gone entirely.

The key principle of this republic is that there is a separation of powers as well. That seems to be brushed aside when the people want to make an example out of a group.

I want to know what vested interests the legal profession has in disallowing the legislative branch control over judicial pay?

fp4zwk71ongl59 wrote: »

AFAIK it is frowned upon to make such posts in this forum without adding your own opinion. I would be happy to discuss the if you could add more of an opinion than "interesting"

It's against the rules to start a thread with just a quote. There are 174 posts in this thread, 44 of those are mine. If you don't believe that I've said enough, I'll gladly elaborate on what the article says. It is interesting that the general public (non-legal profession) can see that this amendment poses a real risk to the people of this country. What kind of a vested interest does this reporter have?

It's not just people from the legal profession telling you this is a bad idea.
Just out of curiosity, would you say a doctor has a vested interest in telling you not to eat too many trans-fats?
A plumber to tells you not to put (*insert something you're not supposed to do here*).

Are those vested interests? Quite simply the "legal profession" knows about the importance of the constitution because they happen to be educated in it, educated in constitutional theory and educated in why it's important.

Otherwise, the report post button is on the left.

smcgiff

The only problem I have with this referendum is that i can only vote yes once - the arrogance of judges at not accepting a pay cut is rightly rewarded with this referendum.

The judges tried to abuse their position for their own gain at a time when even public service cleaners were getting pay cuts.

Can't believe there are still 15% of judges cocking a leg at the public - but I'd put this down to stupidity rather than arrogance - most of the 85% of the judges only eventually accepted very slowly and then only when they realised they were not going to be allowed to get away with it.

Expect 90% plus yes vote.

FreudianSlippers

smcgiff wrote: »

The only problem I have with this referendum is that i can only vote yes once - the arrogance of judges at not accepting a pay cut is rightly rewarded with this referendum.

The judges tried to abuse their position for their own gain at a time when even public service cleaners were getting pay cuts.

Can't believe there are still 15% of judges cocking a leg at the public - but I'd put this down to stupidity rather than arrogance - most of the 85% of the judges only eventually accepted very slowly and then only when they realised they were not going to be allowed to get away with it.

Expect 90% plus yes vote.

So you're willing to give the Oireachtas unprecedented powers and control over the judiciary because you want to stick it to the man?

Cool.

smcgiff

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you're willing to give the Oireachtas unprecedented powers and control over the judiciary because you want to stick it to the man?

Cool.

When do we vote in judges to their positions? We have far greater control over politicians - just ask the dozens of FF TDs - oh wait...

FreudianSlippers

smcgiff wrote: »

When do we vote in judges to their positions? We have far greater control over politicians - just ask the dozens of FF TDs - oh wait...

Voting judges into their positions is not a part of modern democracy. It damages the separation of powers and turns the judiciary into a circus of pandering to an election base rather than focusing on implementation of the law.

smcgiff

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Voting judges into their positions is not a part of modern democracy. It damages the separation of powers and turns the judiciary into a circus of pandering to an election base rather than focusing on implementation of the law.

Someone better tell the good citizens of the US they do not live in a modern democracy. I prefer the system in Ireland and think something as big as judges pay should only be changed by referendum. After all, a system where judges can abuse the system is not good for democracy either.

FreudianSlippers

smcgiff wrote: »

Someone better tell the good citizens of the US they do not live in a modern democracy. I prefer the system in Ireland and think something as big as judges pay should only be changed by referendum. After all, a system where judges can abuse the system is not good for democracy either.

That's a pretty wide brush there considering every county, state and position is different.

I will admit that it is done in some courts in the USA, but it's widely condemned by the US Supreme Court.

In fact, less than 80% of judges face election in the US in 39 states.

Sandra Day O’Connor, the former Supreme Court justice, has condemned the practice of electing judges.
“No other nation in the world does that,” she said at a conference on judicial independence at Fordham Law School in April, “because they realize you’re not going to get fair and impartial judges that way.”

"To the rest of the world,” Hans A. Linde, a justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, since retired, said at a 1988 symposium on judicial selection, “American adherence to judicial elections is as incomprehensible as our rejection of the metric system."

“The rest of the world,” he added, “is stunned and amazed at what we do, and vaguely aghast. They think the idea that judges with absolutely no judge-specific educational training are running political campaigns is both insane and characteristically American.”

“It’s a remnant of the populist Jacksonian image of public office,” he said. “We’re crazy about elections. The number of different offices we elect is enormous.”

There is reason to think, though, that the idea of popular control of the government associated with President Andrew Jackson is an illusion when it comes to judges. Some political scientists say voters do not have anything near enough information to make sensible choices, in part because most judicial races rarely receive news coverage. When voters do have information, these experts say, it is often from sensational or misleading television advertisements.

“You don’t get popular control out of this,” said Steven E. Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College in Minnesota. “When you vote with no information, you get the illusion of control. The overwhelming norm is no to low information.”

Still, judges often alter their behavior as elections approach. A study in Pennsylvania by Gregory A. Huber and Sanford C. Gordon found that “all judges, even the most punitive, increase their sentences as re-election nears,” resulting in some 2,700 years of additional prison time, or 6 percent of total prison time, in aggravated assault, rape and robbery sentences over a 10-year period.

In an interview, Justice Butler — a graduate of the University of Wisconsin law school who served for 12 years as a judge in Milwaukee courts — said the past few months had tested his commitment to elections.

“My position historically has been that there is something to be said for the public to be selecting people who are going to be making decisions about their futures,” Justice Butler said.

“But people ought to be looking at judges’ ability to analyze and interpret the law, their legal training, their experience level and, most importantly, their impartiality,” he continued. “They should not be making decisions based on ads filled with lies, deception, falsehood and race-baiting. The system is broken, and that robs the public of their right to be informed.”

Judge Baissus, the French judge, said his nation had once considered electing its judiciary.

“It’s an argument that was largely debated after the French revolution,” he said. “It was thought not to be a good idea. People seeking re-election would not be independent. They are indeed close to the electorate, but sometimes uncomfortably so.”


The U.S. genuinely admits that they are the only modern democracy that elects some of their judges and they even admit it's probably not the greatest thing ever.

smcgiff

I'm not saying democratically voting judges is a good idea - but to paraphrase Churchill the current system is not perfect either.

However we do control elected officials and there is the counter balance. Not perfect, but neither is the system that allowed the judiciary to stick two fingers up to the rest of the country.

FreudianSlippers

smcgiff wrote: »

I'm not saying democratically voting judges is a good idea - but to paraphrase Churchill the current system is not perfect either.

However we do control elected officials and there is the counter balance. Not perfect, but neither is the system that allowed the judiciary to stick two fingers up to the rest of the country.

If that's the way you see it, then that's the way you see it.

I'm not against linking judges' pay to a specific category of PS worker, I'm against the vague nature of this amendment and I'm against giving the Oireachtas the unbridled control over judges' pay.

Reword the amendment either taking the power away from the Oireachtas and simply linking it to a class of PS worker or else reword it so that it is less ambiguous and I'd vote yes.


This is a bully-boy, sideshow tactic by the government playing on populist notions.
They're asking you to give them the power now to punish those seen as greedy in the public eye. There is little to no rational thought being put into this.

glic71rods46t0

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If that's the way you see it, then that's the way you see it.

I'm not against linking judges' pay to a specific category of PS worker, I'm against the vague nature of this amendment and I'm against giving the Oireachtas the unbridled control over judges' pay.

Reword the amendment either taking the power away from the Oireachtas and simply linking it to a class of PS worker or else reword it so that it is less ambiguous and I'd vote yes.


This is a bully-boy, sideshow tactic by the government playing on populist notions.
They're asking you to give them the power now to punish those seen as greedy in the public eye. There is little to no rational thought being put into this.

Well in fairness we are only getting one option on how to right the wrong of certain judges putting 2 fingers up to the Irish public.
The culprits are the greedy 15% of judges who didn't take the cut voluntarily. It beggars belief that even 1 judge would defy the will of the people in such a disrespectful way duriing a national crisis.
I only regret that we cant vote on "retiring" all judges who refused the cut.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

“The rest of the world,” he added, “is stunned and amazed at what we do, and vaguely aghast. They think the idea that judges with absolutely no judge-specific educational training are running political campaigns is both insane and characteristically American.”

Whereas in Ireland judges with absolutely no judge-specific educational training are lobbying/doing deals with politicians for nomination.

But we digress, this is not the subject of either referendum, even though it should be.

johnnyskeleton

smcgiff wrote: »

The only problem I have with this referendum is that i can only vote yes once - the arrogance of judges at not accepting a pay cut is rightly rewarded with this referendum.

The judges tried to abuse their position for their own gain at a time when even public service cleaners were getting pay cuts.

Can't believe there are still 15% of judges cocking a leg at the public - but I'd put this down to stupidity rather than arrogance - most of the 85% of the judges only eventually accepted very slowly and then only when they realised they were not going to be allowed to get away with it.

Expect 90% plus yes vote.

What do you do? Let's say you have a job in the public or the private sector. Suppose your boss (or the state) said "look lads, were in trouble and need to make pay cuts. How about a voluntary cut?". How many public / private sector workers would accept same on a voluntary basis?

You can bet you bottom dollar that the number who would take a pay cut would be significantly less than 85%. think of all the employees in dell, SRT Technics etc who would rather lose their jobs than take a pay cut. The same is even more true of the public sector.

Yet time an time again people ignore the 85% who took the paycut voluntarily (that's the majority of then for those with difficulty in maths).

Of the remaining 15%, maybe they didn't take the pay cuts voluntarily because they are mortgaged up to the hilt. Maybe they have kids to feed.

The reason for the slow build ofthe take up, in case you missed it in the redtops, is that there were a number of ways that the payment could be made, the most preferable was at the end of the tax year. So the argument that they only took it up under pressure is skewed at best.

I'm appalled at the attitude of so many Irish people who feel that by voting yes they are cocking a snook at the establishment. But I'm not surprised. These are the people who voted fianna fail and bertie into power time and time again. We get the government we deserve and have always driven out our brightest and best out of sheer exasperation.

But all this aside, who really cares at the end of the day. I mean, they are just judges after all. It's not like we are making the bankers take pay cuts or anything.

oscarBravo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Of the remaining 15%, maybe they didn't take the pay cuts voluntarily because they are mortgaged up to the hilt. Maybe they have kids to feed.

Or maybe they're just arrogant knobs. It doesn't really matter: very few people disagree with the principle that judges' pay should be subject to the same downward pressure as the public service generally.

The problem is not with the principle, it's with the mechanism. Sure, let's amend the constitution to allow for a reduction in judges' pay, but for fecks sake can we please do it properly?

johnnyskeleton

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or maybe they're just arrogant knobs. It doesn't really matter: very few people disagree with the principle that judges' pay should be subject to the same downward pressure as the public service generally.

The problem is not with the principle, it's with the mechanism. Sure, let's amend the constitution to allow for a reduction in judges' pay, but for fecks sake can we please do it properly?

Well the presumption that they are arrogant knobs is one of the reasons why people refuse to deal with the referendum rationally.

oscarBravo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well the presumption that they are arrogant knobs is one of the reasons why people refuse to deal with the referendum rationally.

Sadly true, but there should be no reason or excuse for refusing to think rationally about an amendment to the constitution. The sad thing about a referendum is that it's not just the people who refuse to think rationally about it that have to live with the consequences of that refusal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...and equally shameful that most people won't care.

johnnyskeleton

For the sake of completeness it should not be forgotten that the amendment should also be criticised for not having any provision preventing judges pay being increased by politicians.

I'm sure if any government wanted to influence the judges they would use promises of extra money as well as threats of paycuts. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

swordofislam

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sure if any government wanted to influence the judges they would use promises of extra money as well as threats of paycuts. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

The Fianna Fail shadow government understood that thoroughly and their lordships have never found reason to object to either the opacity of the means by which they are selected or to their pay increases or grotesque pension terms until now.

What has changed? Surely these bewigged Solomons, these failthful guidedogs of blind lady justice would have been just as concerned about an injustice in their own financial interests as an injustice that is against their financial interests?

If you want a judge to uphold of the interests of the rich make him rich.

carlost

DB21 wrote: »

In relation to Judge's pay, I'm going to post something my Step-Dad said this morning, which genuinely changed my view on this issue; Judge's need a salary that is large enough to prevent them turning to corruption as a way to make ends meet. Our Judicial system, in my opinion, is one of the cleanest in the world. Yes, there have been cases of corruption in the past, but not nearly as bad as places like Italy where Judges may have ties with the Mafia, or certain countries where Judges are paid off by government officials to lock up any noise makers. Lets assume this bill passes. Judge's pay is slashed. Suddenly (yes, I am aware that Judges, like everyone, should adapt, but here me out) a few can't afford their bills. What then? Say one of our infamous gang leaders makes it worth a Judge's while to throw out some cases against his friends, or be lenient in sentencing. Corruption spreads like a virus. Suddenly the majority are on the take, and the country starts to run into serious legal problems. Laws aren't being upheld by the courts. This leads to anarchy. I know it's a big leap, but it's feasible if the pay cut is severe enough. I was originally a solid yes vote. I'm reconsidering my decision. I hope everyone that votes takes time to do the same.

Hmm the pay cut will mean the lowest salary for a judge is 120,000. if you cant make ends meet on this wage... which is 4 times the average wage. Also if you are open to corruption @ 120k chances are you are open to corruption anyway. Over the past 11 years pay increases of approximately 100% have been enjoyed by judges... so judges pay can go up but not down regardless of the state of the nation. Judges could have avoided this by accepting voluntary pay cuts

FreudianSlippers

carlost wrote: »

Hmm the pay cut will mean the lowest salary for a judge is 120,000. if you cant make ends meet on this wage... which is 4 times the average wage. Also if you are open to corruption @ 120k chances are you are open to corruption anyway. Over the past 11 years pay increases of approximately 100% have been enjoyed by judges... so judges pay can go up but not down regardless of the state of the nation. Judges could have avoided this by accepting voluntary pay cuts

I urge you to read the thread. The issue is not corruption. Also, your comparison to the average working wage is nonsense; you cannot expect someone to cut their salary in half and continue to be able to pay their bills.

anymore

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or maybe they're just arrogant knobs. It doesn't really matter: very few people disagree with the principle that judges' pay should be subject to the same downward pressure as the public service generally.

The problem is not with the principle, it's with the mechanism. Sure, let's amend the constitution to allow for a reduction in judges' pay, but for fecks sake can we please do it properly?

custodiam ipsos custodes
Asking the people to decide seems by far the best option on this matter. Allowing these matters to be decided in club rooms or in the corridors of legal chambers, is by fat the lest best option.
Why is the legal profession so fearful of letting the people decide ? Both criminal and civil cases are decided on the basis of the opinions of 12 men and women ; should these same people and thier fellow citizens be deemed unsuitable to decide on this matter. The people we elect to our legislature pass the laws that govern our lives every day of the week - if we we are willing to trust them in this way, why should we not trust in relation to this matter ? It doesnt seem logical to say we trust them to pass laws on taxation, marriage, adoption. abortion, what animals we can keep as pets, where we bury our dead, when we can purchase alcohol, a variety of human rights issues and all the other myriad issues on which legislation is enacted, yet we cannot trust them to regulate the salaries of the Judiciary ? The fact that election are held at least every five years is not sufficient safeguard for the judiciary, they and they alone are to be treated as supreme exceptions in this country !
Whatever justifies this ?

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I urge you to read the thread. The issue is not corruption. Also, your comparison to the average working wage is nonsense; you cannot expect someone to cut their salary in half and continue to be able to pay their bills.

Oh I can assure from personal experience that a person can. And I never even remotely earned near to what judges earn. I am curious to know what kind of lifestyles these jidges have if € 120,000 would be insufficient to finance them ?