Eight former attorneys general oppose constitutional amendments

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

I am not seeking such a body.

So you are happy for judicial pay cuts to be handled in an inappropriate manner?

I would rather win what can be won today by cutting judicial pay (and boy are they going to cut it hee hee hee ) than seek to establish a body that has never been called for before.

It's interesting that those of us who seek to protect the constitution are accused of having an axe to grind in favour of judges, when every single post you make on this topic speaks to a serious and deep-rooted hatred of the judiciary.

So, tell me: what's your beef?

As I say I would be happy to have all juidicial pay reset to 1922 levels (and all monies in excess of that repaid) if this referendum falls.

I would normally ask whether you would be happy to have your pay reset to 1922 levels, but that would be missing the point that you clearly have an agenda against judges in particular.

Were you an agitator for such a body before this referendum and if not why not and what's changed?

What's changed is an attempt to eviscerate the constitution in an attempt to appease people like you who don't consider any price too high to make judges suffer.

PeterIanStaker

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Would you like to hand the likes of Gerry Adams or Martin Ferris these kind of powers? (Not that they give a toss about this State or its laws).
Fine Gael are authoritarian enough, thanks. Also, if Fianna Fail worm, weasel, crawl back into govt in 5 - 10 years, bankers won't even get a look in . . . in the National Interest!

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's why people are extremely naive when they think it'll be used to investigate the bankers or anyone responsible for the current mess. O'Toole is being quite naive today if he thinks that this, or any future govt will use these powers for anything other than witch-hunting or ass-covering : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1025/1224306445790.html

oscarBravo

Man, that O'Toole op-ed makes depressing reading.

The fact that such men oppose the referendum on Oireachtas inquiries (albeit for the purest of reasons) is not a bad argument in its favour.

On the contrary, Fintan, it's about the worst possible argument in its favour.

We have to risk disappointment by having some hope of real change.

We're not risking disappointment, we're risking the bloody constitution.

I've considered Fintan a muppet for a long time, but this takes the biscuit.

swordofislam

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's changed is an attempt to eviscerate the constitution in an attempt to appease people like you who don't consider any price too high to make judges suffer.

The constitution will be amended not eviscerated. I am a democrat. I believe that the sovereign will of the Irish people must triumph over the dead hand of de Valera. Of course I am not a judge nor is my mother a judge.

swordofislam

oscarBravo wrote: »

every single post you make on this topic speaks to a serious and deep-rooted hatred of the judiciary.

So tell me what's your beef?

1. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent
2. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent to help the powerful
3. Judges in Ireland are inconsistent in their decisions
4. Judges in Ireland are drawn massively disproportionately from the ranks of the rich
5. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour
6. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour and this impacts on their decisions
7. Judges in Ireland are unaccountable for their actions
8. Judges in Ireland are overpaid
9. Judges in Ireland receive 40/80ths of a pension after 15 years
10. Judges in Ireland were drivers of the industrial schools system
11. Judges in Ireland scourge the poor and toady to the rich
12. Judges in Ireland demand that those who appear before them toady to them

I could go on and on and on.

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

The constitution will be amended not eviscerated.

Weakening the separation of powers amounts to the evisceration of the constitution. Of course, if the single most important thing in your life is the suffering of judges, then trivia like the checks and balances inherent in a true republic can be safely ignored.

I am a democrat. I believe that the sovereign will of the Irish people must triumph over the dead hand of de Valera.

I have no idea what DeValera has to do with anything, but a true democrat would understand that there's more to democracy than blunt majoritarianism.

Of course I am not a judge nor is my mother a judge.

If you believe that everyone who is opposed to this amendment is either a judge or related to one, then there's no point discussing the issue with you any further. You have demonstrated the most closed-minded attitude to any issue that I've ever seen on this forum, and - trust me - that's an astonishing achievement.

Go ahead, vote this in. You'll get your short-term pound of flesh. I hope you get as much satisfaction from it as you seem to be getting from the mere anticipation of it. I guess true democracy is a small price to pay.

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

1. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent
2. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent to help the powerful
3. Judges in Ireland are inconsistent in their decisions
4. Judges in Ireland are drawn massively disproportionately from the ranks of the rich
5. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour
6. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour and this impacts on their decisions
7. Judges in Ireland are unaccountable for their actions
8. Judges in Ireland are overpaid
9. Judges in Ireland receive 40/80ths of a pension after 15 years
10. Judges in Ireland were drivers of the industrial schools system
11. Judges in Ireland scourge the poor and toady to the rich
12. Judges in Ireland demand that those who appear before them toady to them

I could go on and on and on.

You could, but so far you're batting one for twelve (only point 8 is remotely relevant to this amendment, and this amendment is the wrong way to address that - you've admitted as much yourself, although you quickly reversed course when brought up on it).

How will the proposed amendment in any way, shape or form address the other eleven points you've made?

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. On the same basis, I always ask my pharmacist for advice on home heating, and my barber about my prescriptions.

Sure, they don't have the first clue about the topic, but that's better than the possibility that they might have an agenda, isn't it?

But would you canvass the opinions of plumbers on any law that would lessen their future earning potential ?
One should always way up who gains out of a decision and a course of action.
Getting members of the legal profession to agree to any amendments or bills that lessen their control is like getting turkeys to vote for christmas.

I actually admire Shatter because even though a member of the legal profession he is at least trying to shake up our decrepit legal system.
The propsoed legal bill is badly needed and I do believe our parliamentary enquiries do lack teeth.
And I do know that for some the argument is the wording rather than the idea.

Oh and I do think he was right to challenge the bonafides of some of the signatories of that letter.

dermot gleeson is one of the last people that should have any input into the way future enquiries are formulated, as he has huge questions to answer as to why the Irish taxpayers are responsible to the tune of many billions for an private sector organisation where he was chairman of the board.
Another signatory was in the government whose economic decisions should be subject to future enquiry.

swordofislam

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could, but so far you're batting one for twelve (only point 8 is remotely relevant to this amendment, and this amendment is the wrong way to address that - you've admitted as much yourself, although you quickly reversed course when brought up on it).

How will the proposed amendment in any way, shape or form address the other eleven points you've made?

It allows for point 9 to be addressed.
Reducing judicial pay will make them less sympathetic to the rich.
If being an judge were less of a handy number we might get some MORE people of integrity on the bench (we have had some I freely admit).

If people of integrity were on the bench this might have an impact on the culture of the bar. and this might have an impact on legal culture and on the culture of business generally.

By cutting judicial pay we can created a society in which rules are applied fairly and evenhandedly.

A vote against cutting judicial pay is a vote of support for those judges who sent thousands of children to the Fianna Fail gulag Ireland's industrial schools.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Won't the ex AGs be amongst the premier choices as barristers for lucrative tribunals?

No, the vast majority of them are retired and/or not eligible to sit on tribunals and/or don't do tribunal work (remember that only a very slim number of barristers do tribunal work).

swordofislam

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is a proxy vote on the incarceration of thousands of children in Industrial schools. I feel that the judiciary wronged those children.

How do you feel? Can the thought of their suffering melt the ice cold heart of your collegiality or does the clink of coin drown out their screams?

Vote YES!

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

It is a proxy vote on the incarceration of thousands of children in Industrial schools. I feel that the judiciary wronged those children.

I need to resurrect the thread in the Political Theory forum on direct democracy - you've single-handedly demonstrated perfectly how it can go horribly wrong.

How do you feel? Can the thought of their suffering melt the ice cold heart of your collegiality or does the clink of coin drown out their screams?

Not to worry - eroding the separation of powers and handing more control to the government will right every wrong that's ever been done by the judiciary, because we can trust the government. Right?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

carveone

PeterIanStaker wrote:

That's why people are extremely naive when they think it'll be used to investigate the bankers or anyone responsible for the current mess.

+1. I can't imagine it would be in the "public interest" to investigate things that might end up burning those initiating the investigation.

On the other hand it might be in the public interest to tap journalists phones.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Man, that O'Toole op-ed makes depressing reading.

The fact that such men oppose the referendum on Oireachtas inquiries (albeit for the purest of reasons) is not a bad argument in its favour.

I've considered Fintan a muppet for a long time, but this takes the biscuit.

Good grief, what is he, 6 years old? Now I'm tempted to read his article. And I don't want to, it'll just annoy me and it's only the early afternoon.

Edit:
"We have to decide that if you’re part of a toxic past, you’re not well placed to represent a decent future".

That's the Irish Times smoked then. How much did they spend on myhome.ie? 50 million you say? What was the salary of the former editor of the IT, Ms. Kennedy? Didn't the High Court call the ITs decision to destroy documents an 'astounding and flagrant disregard of the rule of law'?

How well placed is the assistant editor of the IT to represent a decent future then? Or is that all in the past and best forgotten eh?

Wildlife Actor

swordofislam wrote: »

1. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent
2. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent to help the powerful
3. Judges in Ireland are inconsistent in their decisions
4. Judges in Ireland are drawn massively disproportionately from the ranks of the rich
5. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour
6. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour and this impacts on their decisions
7. Judges in Ireland are unaccountable for their actions
8. Judges in Ireland are overpaid
9. Judges in Ireland receive 40/80ths of a pension after 15 years
10. Judges in Ireland were drivers of the industrial schools system
11. Judges in Ireland scourge the poor and toady to the rich
12. Judges in Ireland demand that those who appear before them toady to them

I could go on and on and on.

1. True in many cases, false in some. Reform the appointments system.
2. False. Before 90% of judges the little guy gets all the breaks, and more. Reform the appointments system.
3. Same point as 1 in a way. Reform the appointments system.
4. False. The better judges usually are as they are better lawyers. Judges are drawn from the political classes. Reform the appointments system.
5. True. Reform the appointments system.
6. False. Some are seen as "pro state" but it is the mildest bias and is not connected with their political affiliations. They would never hold for the state on an obvious case that they should lose. Nothing to do with judges' pay.
7. True. The higher courts can reverse them but not discipline them. One body they should not be accountable to is the cabinet.
8. Everyone's entitled to their opinion but the best judges take a paycut by becoming a judge. Beware the judge for whom the bench is a payrise.
9. See 8.
10. Come off it! Society was. Any involvement of the judges was a reflection of society. Certainly nothing to do with the referendum.
11. Nonsense. See 2 above.
12. Toady and respect are different things. Without respect, the system simply does not work. Nothing to do with the referendum.

In short, this is the type of anti-logic that brings democracy into disrepute.

RichieC

if permabear opposes it I support it

meditraitor

oscarBravo wrote: »

So far, so good. To this point, you're in complete agreement with pretty much everyone who opposes this amendment. .

Dont see it, sorry.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is where we start to differ. If the changes were clear, there wouldn't be a problem. Persons belonging to particular class? What class? Not clear. What classes of persons paid out of public money? Politicians? Teachers? Sub-contractors to construction firms paid by the state to build roads? Social welfare recipients? Not clear..

Its obvious this is a reference to Civil Servants,

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the public interest? Defined by whom? Not clear..

Defined by the democratically elected government.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Proportionate reductions? What proportion? A tenth? Double? Not clear..

No need to exaggerate, they will be renumerated at that of a higher level civil servant and rightly so, nobody thinks that the government would put this in so they could turn around tomorrrow and pay the judges minimum wage.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's nothing clear about this amendment. It introduces a muddiness into that section of the constitution which undermines the entire point of having that section there in the first place - the separation of powers, and ensuring that the government can't exert undue influence on the judiciary.

Why seperation of powers? Why shouldnt the government have influence over the judiciary?
The Canadians seem to be doing ok,

And this bit is important, many parts of the constitution are vague, guess who clears this up?

There is no bogey man and not a single argument against voting yes make a bit of sense.

Love nor Money wrote:

In short, this is the type of anti-logic that brings democracy into disrepute.

That is the most ridiculous sentence I have seen around here in a while, and there have been some humdingers....

FreudianSlippers

meditraitor wrote: »

Its obvious this is a reference to Civil Servants,

Ok, where?

Defined by the democratically elected government.

So, whoever or however many classes they so choose?

No need to exaggerate, they will be renumerated at that of a higher level civil servant and rightly so, nobody thinks that the government would put this in so they could turn around tomorrrow and pay the judges minimum wage.

I'd be all for creating set classes and paygrades for PS workers.

Why seperation of powers? Why shouldnt the government have influence over the judiciary?

Why should they? Separation of Powers is a cornerstone principle of our constitution.

The Canadians seem to be doing ok,

I guess you didn't read Provincial Judges Reference [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3:

These different components of the institutional financial security of the courts inhere, in my view, in a fundamental principle of the Canadian Constitution, the separation of powers. As I discussed above, the institutional independence of the courts is inextricably bound up with the separation of powers, because in order to guarantee that the courts can protect the Constitution, they must be protected by a set of objective guarantees against intrusions by the executive and legislative branches of government.

The separation of powers requires, at the very least, that some functions must be exclusively reserved to particular bodies: see Cooper, supra, at para. 13. However, there is also another aspect of the separation of powers -- the notion that the principle requires that the different branches of government only interact, as much as possible, in particular ways. In other words, the relationships between the different branches of government should have a particular character. For example, there is a hierarchical relationship between the executive and the legislature, whereby the executive must execute and implement the policies which have been enacted by the legislature in statutory form: see Cooper, supra, at paras. 23 and 24. In a system of responsible government, once legislatures have made political decisions and embodied those decisions in law, it is the constitutional duty of the executive to implement those choices.

What is at issue here is the character of the relationships between the legislature and the executive on the one hand, and the judiciary on the other. These relationships should be depoliticized. When I say that those relationships are depoliticized, I do not mean to deny that they are political in the sense that court decisions (both constitutional and non-constitutional) often have political implications, and that the statutes which courts adjudicate upon emerge from the political process. What I mean instead is the legislature and executive cannot, and cannot appear to, exert political pressure on the judiciary, and conversely, that members of the judiciary should exercise reserve in speaking out publicly on issues of general public policy that are or have the potential to come before the courts, that are the subject of political debate, and which do not relate to the proper administration of justice.

To be sure, the depoliticization of the relationships between the legislature and the executive on the one hand, and the judiciary on the other, is largely governed by convention. And as I said in Cooper, supra, at para. 22, the conventions of the British Constitution do not have the force of law in Canada: Reference re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, supra. However, to my mind, the depoliticization of these relationships is so fundamental to the separation of powers, and hence to the Canadian Constitution, that the provisions of the Constitution, such as s. 11(d) of the Charter, must be interpreted in such a manner as to protect this principle.

And this bit is important, many parts of the constitution are vague, guess who clears this up?

The Judiciary. That's their job after all.

There is no bogey man and not a single argument against voting yes make a bit of sense.

I feel the same way about people attempting to rationalise a yes vote.

That is the most ridiculous sentence I have seen around here in a while, and there have been some humdingers....

Nice little zing there with no substance.

oscarBravo

meditraitor wrote: »

Dont see it, sorry.

Can you provide a list of people - on this forum or elsewhere - who have argued for a "no" vote with the express intention of protecting judges' pay?

Its obvious this is a reference to Civil Servants,

Obvious isn't good enough. What's obvious to you isn't always obvious to someone else. It's ambiguous, and it doesn't need to be ambiguous. This is a bad thing.

Defined by the democratically elected government.

I'd point out the problem of separation of powers, except you've already said that you don't see the need for it. Which is a bit scary, to be honest.

No need to exaggerate, they will be renumerated at that of a higher level civil servant and rightly so, nobody thinks that the government would put this in so they could turn around tomorrrow and pay the judges minimum wage.

I don't give one good goddamn why the government put it in, I care about what a future Charlie Haughey will do with a weapon we carelessly hand the government because we don't think they'll use it.

You say that "they will be renumerated at that of a higher level civil servant..." - but it doesn't. say. that. in the bloody amendment. When I exaggerate for effect, it's because those exaggerations will no longer be unconstitutional once an electorate that doesn't know or care about the fundamental underlying principles of democracy cheerfully chips a large chunk out of the foundation of basic law.

Maybe we should delete article 46.2 - after all, it's unreasonable to think that a government would amend the constitution without asking us first. They're the democratically-elected representatives of the people, right? We can trust them. Right?

Why seperation of powers? Why shouldnt the government have influence over the judiciary?

Oh, dear god.

swordofislam

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nice little zing there with no substance.

From the man who regards the question of judicial lawmaking as clearly settled.

FreudianSlippers

swordofislam wrote: »

From the man who regards the question of judicial lawmaking as clearly settled.

You keep saying that and it just makes no sense.

How is it not settled then? Care to enlighten us?
It's not my fault that you don't understand how laws are made and the role of the judiciary in a common law system.

walshb

swordofislam wrote: »

If Peter Sutherland is against this referendum that's a pretty good reason to vote in favour.

Absolutely, and the fact that 8 are in agreement here tells me something is sussy. I will vote for the amendment.

If politicians are competent enough to appoint judges to the bench then they
are competent enough to investigate. Anyway, the real investigations will be carried
out by experts. The politicians will be in name mostly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely, and the fact that 8 are in agreement here tells me something is sussy.

It doesn't tell you that; you choose to place that interpretation on it. You could have chosen the interpretation that eight lawyers who were distinguished enough in their field to be chosen as chief legal adviser to the government in their day ought to know what they're talking about.

If politicians are competent enough to appoint judges to the bench then they
are competent enough to investigate. Anyway, the real investigations will be carried
out by experts. The politicians will be in name mostly.

That's a compelling argument to disband the judiciary and transfer its functions in their entirety to the Dáil. Would you support such a move?

Not that it's a valid argument in any case. If I employ a qualified engineer to do a difficult technical job in my business, does that automatically make me qualified to do his job?

walshb

Well, we have had enough justice cock ups and scandals to tell me that those in the judiciary aren't the be all and end all. Pamela, anyone? I'll take my gamble with voting for the amendment.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

It doesn't tell you that; you choose to place that interpretation on it. You could have chosen the interpretation that eight lawyers who were distinguished enough in their field to be chosen as chief legal adviser to the government in their day ought to know what they're talking about. ?

Yes, and I trust my interpretation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

Well, we have had enough justice cock ups and scandals to tell me that those in the judiciary aren't the be all and end all. Pamela, anyone? I'll take my gamble with voting for the amendment.

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and I trust my interpretation.

Compelling arguments indeed.

Boulevardier

Permabear's post tells me a lot about the sort of attitudes that underlie opposition to this amendment.

In this case, it is a combination of dislike of immigration, and a complete lack of confidence in Irish voters' ability to elect leaders who can carry out inquiries as are done in the US and UK.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Boulevardier wrote: »

In this case, it is a combination of dislike of immigration...

Irrelevant to the discussion, particularly given that Pamela I wasn't an immigrant.

...and a complete lack of confidence in Irish voters' ability to elect leaders who can carry out inquiries as are done in the US and UK.

A cursory glance around Dáil Éireann should be enough to justify such a lack of confidence, but that's not the point. The US and UK legislatures don't have anything like the powers that are being co-opted by the government in this amendment. They certainly don't have the power to decide that the public interest (whatever it suits them to decide that that means) outweigh an individual's constitutional rights to fair procedure.

Boulevardier

"Do you think that "bankers and developers," who have been lambasted endlessly by FG and LAB as a proxy for Fianna Fáil, would get a fair hearing in a Dáil dominated by those parties?"

I think they would be made to answer for the way they have shafted the country, and that is as it should be. Things like corruption in trade unions can be examined by the criminal authorities whether or not this amendment is passed.

"They certainly don't have the power to decide that the public interest (whatever it suits them to decide that that means) outweigh an individual's constitutional rights to fair procedure. "

The amendment actually states that people appearing before the committees WILL have the right to fair procedure! In the UK on the other hand, Parliament can give themselves any rights they want any time they want, as there is no written constitution to stop them. No great harm has been done as far as I know.

Therefore, if we pass this amendment and then enact safeguards in legislation, our situation will be identical to, or in fact safer than, the one in the UK. Why should the outcome be any different?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Boulevardier wrote: »

I think they would be made to answer for the way they have shafted the country, and that is as it should be.

At any cost? There is literally no price too high to pay for this pound of flesh you seek?

The amendment actually states that people appearing before the committees WILL have the right to fair procedure!

The amendment explicitly doesn't state that. It says that the House or Houses have to give "due regard" to fair procedure, but that they get to decide where the balance is.

In the UK on the other hand, Parliament can give themselves any rights they want any time they want, as there is no written consitution at all to stop them. No great harm has been done as far as I know.

Are you seriously stating your opinion that Parliament could give itself the right to summarily execute people without trial, and that there is no constitutional bar to them doing so?

I think you're taking the phrase "unwritten constitution" a little too literally.

Therefore, if we pass this amendment and then enact safeguards in legislation, our situation will be identical to, or in fact safer than, the one in the UK. Why should the outcome be any different?

Because the proposed amendment doesn't require such safeguards to exist in legislation, and as such a future government could repeal any that this government (or any other) enacts.

If the point of this amendment isn't to deny people recourse to the courts, then what exactly do you think it's for?

Boulevardier

Permabear, you may have sympathy for the bankers and developers' plight, but I'll be perfectly honest with you, I'm not going to lose any sleep.

"Are you seriously stating your opinion that Parliament could give itself the right to summarily execute people without trial, and that there is no constitutional bar to them doing so?" - In principle, yes, I am saying that.

This Dail will almost certainly put extensive safeguards into the legislation. Other Dails might not keep to that, but I think that they probably would.

The point of this amendment is to get to the truth, the same way as the UK Parliament has over phone hacking, and the same way the US Congress has done countless times. Vote no this time, then that is not going to happen for a very long time.

Scofflaw

Apparently, the Chairman of the Referendum Commission has confirmed on Pat Kenny that in their view only in extreme cases would the courts have a role in protecting your rights under this amendment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

walshb

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You can slice it and dice it any way you want. The fact is that it was the judiciary that was shown as a complete shambles in her case. The judiciary, not the politicians.

oscarBravo

Boulevardier wrote: »

Permabear, you may have sympathy for the bankers and developers' plight, but I'll be perfectly honest with you, I'm not going to lose any sleep.

That's a totally unfair (but completely typical) re-frame. Having respect for the constitution doesn't equate to having sympathy for the people that the government is trying to shred the constitution in order to pillory.

"Are you seriously stating your opinion that Parliament could give itself the right to summarily execute people without trial, and that there is no constitutional bar to them doing so?" - In principle, yes, I am saying that.

That's because you are falling into the trap of believing that the UK doesn't have a constitution. It doesn't have one written down in a single document, but it most certainly has constitutional principles.

This Dail will almost certainly put extensive safeguards into the legislation. Other Dails might not keep to that, but I think that they probably would.

Oh, you think they probably would? Then I guess there's noting to worry about. After all, if you think that something is probable, then what do we even need a constitution for?

I mean, seriously - are you at all familiar with the history of the Abbeylara inquiry after which this amendment is named?

The point of this amendment is to get to the truth, the same way as the UK Parliament has over phone hacking, and the same way the US Congress has done countless times. Vote no this time, then that is not going to happen for a very long time.

What are the specific constitutional bars to getting to the truth at the moment, and how specifically will this amendment lift those bars?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Apparently, the Chairman of the Referendum Commission has confirmed on Pat Kenny that in their view only in extreme cases would the courts have a role in protecting your rights under this amendment.

I heard a few minutes of that interview. His example of an "extreme case" was one where a committee granted legal representation to two witnesses, but denied it to a third - in other words, an egregious breach of the constitutional right to equality. He said that, beyond that, it was hard to see how the courts could entertain a claim that someone's rights had been breached, since the constitution would say that it was up to the House or Houses to decide what those rights are.

stevensi

Dermot Gleeson is one of the AG's who said vote no. Wasn't he on the board of AIB during the collapse of the banks??? No wonder he is saying no...probably afraid that what really went on will come out and his rep (as bad as it already is) will be destroyed. He knows if this passes he could be in a lot of trouble...and rightfully so!

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

You can slice it and dice it any way you want. The fact is that it was the judiciary that was shown as a complete shambles in her case. The judiciary, not the politicians.

Can you point out the specific steps in the legal process in which the judges failed to apply the law correctly to the Pamela I case?

oscarBravo

stevensi wrote: »

Dermot Gleeson is one of the AG's who said vote no. Wasn't he on the board of AIB during the collapse of the banks??? No wonder he is saying no...probably afraid that what really went on will come out and his rep (as bad as it already is) will be destroyed. He knows if this passes he could be in a lot of trouble...and rightfully so!

So why did David Byrne ask us to vote no? Or Patrick Connolly? Or Paul Gallagher? Or Michael McDowell? Or Peter Sutherland? Or John Rogers? Or Harry Whelehan?

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you point out the specific steps in the legal process in which the judges failed to apply the law correctly to the Pamela I case?

MAYBE THE 20 PLUS APPEALS....Oh, but she was entitled to that wasn't she?:rolleyes:

Anyway, we all have our views, amd mine is for the amendment.

Scofflaw

Again, for those who are apparently under the mistaken belief that Oireachtas inquiries only become possible with this amendment:

The Dirt inquiry has been pointed to by the Tánaiste and others as an example of how an inquiry by a Dáil committee can be successfully conducted. Whereas the Tánaiste is right to claim some credit for the membership of the committee, the structure and preparation provided by the attorney general’s office were key to its success.

I was attorney general at that time and the constitutional parameters were clearly explained to the participants in advance. In particular, it was understood that findings of fact relating to the central issues could be made and sent in a report to the Dáil for debate. However, findings relating to the responsibility of individuals must be avoided. That is the work of the legal system where the appropriate protections relating to the citizen’s good name exist. A senior counsel was appointed to sit with the chairman of the committee and provide legal direction.

For these and other reasons the Dirt inquiry was a success. And so it could be again under the current constitutional structure without the proposed amendment. – Yours, etc

DAVID BYRNE

cordially,
Scofflaw

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

So why did David Byrne ask us to vote no? Or Patrick Connolly? Or Paul Gallagher? Or Michael McDowell? Or Peter Sutherland? Or John Rogers? Or Harry Whelehan?

Wouldn't we love to know.

DeadParrot

stevensi wrote: »

Dermot Gleeson is one of the AG's who said vote no. Wasn't he on the board of AIB during the collapse of the banks??? No wonder he is saying no...probably afraid that what really went on will come out and his rep (as bad as it already is) will be destroyed. He knows if this passes he could be in a lot of trouble...and rightfully so!

That's just frightening.
What part of you actually believes that it is so far beyond the realm of possibility that this could be a very very bad power to give to a Government? (not this one, some future set of lunatics that might get in)

anymore

oscarBravo wrote: »

So why did David Byrne ask us to vote no? Or Patrick Connolly? Or Paul Gallagher? Or Michael McDowell? Or Peter Sutherland? Or John Rogers? Or Harry Whelehan?

Peter Sutherland's cv includes being a European Commissioner for Competitions policy in 1985, Director General of GATT, he was non -executive chairman of BP until June 2009, he was formerly a director of Royal bank of Scotland until it was taken over by the UK government in order to save it, he is non -executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and he is on the steering committee of the Bilderberg group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland

People may judge for themselves how the Competitions policy of the EU has worked out given the EU's present situation, same for GATT, and of course BP is a company that so many have come to love and admire !
I am not a financail expert so I shall avoid comment on Royal bank of Scotland and Goldman Sachs International.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

MAYBE THE 20 PLUS APPEALS....Oh, but she was entitled to that wasn't she?:rolleyes:

So, which is your problem - that she got the due process she was entitled to, or that she got due process she wasn't entitled to?

Anyway, we all have our views, amd mine is for the amendment.

I've yet to see anything remotely resembling a coherent argument in favour of it from you, but then the sheer joy of a referendum is that the votes cast for stupid reasons carry exactly the same weight as those with weeks of careful research and soul-searching. Democracy: ya gotta love it.

walshb wrote: »

Wouldn't we love to know.

You could always take their arguments at face value, but I guess it's easier to implicitly call them liars and question their integrity.

oscarBravo

anymore wrote: »

Peter Sutherland's cv includes being a European Commissioner for Competitions policy in 1985, Director General of GATT, he was non -executive chairman of BP until June 2009, he was formerly a director of Royal bank of Scotland until it was taken over by the UK government in order to save it, he is non -executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and he is on the steering committee of the Bilderberg group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutherland

People may judge for themselves how the Competitions policy of the EU has worked out given the EU's present situation, same for GATT, and of course BP is a company that so many have come to love and admire !
I am not a financail expert so I shall avoid comment on Royal bank of Scotland and Goldman Sachs International.

That's a long and rambling failure to explain why Peter Sutherland wants us to vote "no", not to mention omitting the other six altogether.