Clare Daly TD

efb

K4t wrote: »

Correct. She was either severely misguided due to her extreme catholic beliefs or she was just plain evil, or both. Mother Theresa ~ "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering.” Lovely, sensible woman..

The woman was no saint, she believed suffering was righteous

Godge

hurlsey wrote: »

It has been published twice afaik, once in the 1980s, with ref to the X-case and again in 1995 with ref to Divorce!! I'm unable to find a link atm as soon as I can I'll post it! Afaik there is precedent to publish tge AGs advice!

The 1993 Supreme Court decision on cabinet confidentiality holds precedence.

http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=342

Tabnabs

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said he does not want the country “convulsed” over abortion like it was in the 1980s and said any further developments on the issue are a matter for the next government.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/kenny-does-not-want-country-convulsed-over-abortion-like-in-1980s-1.2099659

FG & the Taoiseach governing for their own party benefit and not for the citizens of Ireland who elected them and who they serve. He doesn't want the mantra of economic recovery muddied and thereby ruining his chance of being the glorious leader to lead FG into their record breaking second consecutive term of government.

It was reported by a labour TD on Newstalk in recent days that Labour have a similar Bill ready that, in their legal opinion (including Ivana Bacik, barrister and Associate Professor of Law, Trinity College), does not require a constitutional amendment. So we see again party politics getting in the way of political reform and dragging our constitution, kicking and screaming, out of the dark ages and into a modern and equal Republic.

But we keep voting in the social conservatives...

K-9

joe swanson wrote: »

Such a moral woman. Pity she wasn't thinking about morals when supporting this

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/tds-support-dissident-republican-in-court-case-30888437.html

Mod:

Can we keep it in someway on topic!

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If only you cared as much about the born, instead of engaging in apologetics for child abusers.

That includes not bringing up posts from other forums on the site.

For Reals

Another cop out by Kenny. 'The abortion issue is for the next government.'
It seems this issue will hang over us as long as we have voting little grannies eating mints and going to church and bingo. Kenny keeps this merry go round on its crooked axis for another generation *slow hand clap*

nokia69

Tabnabs wrote: »

But we keep voting in the social conservatives...

I wish we did

Woodville56

For Reals wrote: »

It seems this issue will hang over us as long as we have voting little grannies eating mints and going to church and bingo.

Yep! It's called democracy, which thankfully isn't ageist either !

K4t

Woodville56 wrote: »

Yep! It's called democracy, which thankfully isn't ageist either !

Some might call it religious indoctrination.

Godge

For Reals wrote: »

Another cop out by Kenny. 'The abortion issue is for the next government.'
It seems this issue will hang over us as long as we have voting little grannies eating mints and going to church and bingo. Kenny keeps this merry go round on its crooked axis for another generation *slow hand clap*

Do you want to take the vote away from little grannies eating mints and going to church and bingo?

Is that how a new socialist republic would work?

K4t

Godge wrote: »

Do you want to take the vote away from little grannies eating mints and going to church and bingo?

He didn't say that, nor did he even insinuate it.

nokia69

we don't let people under 18 vote

so you could argue that we could stop people over a certain age voting too

Eoin

So, regarding this vote and not a referendum - what could the implications have been of passing a law that you had received advice was unconstitutional, in order to have it tested/ruled on by another body?

Was this excuse a cop out, or is it genuinely very bad practice to pass a bill that you don't think would make ultimately allowed?

K4t

nokia69 wrote: »

we don't let people under 18 vote

so you could argue that we could stop people over a certain age voting too

I disagree. The minimum voting age is very much an arbitrary number based on a person's ability to think cognitively. You could make an argument for the minimum voting age to be reduced to an age at which a person knows that they are voting, perhaps 10 or 11? However, 15 would probably be the fairest as it would ensure all voters have potentially witnessed the previous government and thought about their vote.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Ok guess you think making a choice based on bad information is fine.

So your point is that doctors are fallible. Grand. I think we all agree on that.

Do you think a woman should be forced to depend on those same doctors deciding correctly whether or not her life, and not just her health, is at risk before allowing her a termination of a miscarrying fetus, such as happened to Savita Halappanavar then?

Or any of the other cases where the woman is expected to trust those doctors to get all the decisions about her life perfectly right?

Maybe the woman herself should be the one to have the final say in the matter - like your family member did?

oscarBravo

Eoin wrote: »

So, regarding this vote and not a referendum - what could the implications have been of passing a law that you had received advice was unconstitutional, in order to have it tested/ruled on by another body?

By way of analogy, I could ask my lawyer for advice on whether a particular accounting practice was legal, then choose to ignore his advice and just do it anyway - sure won't Revenue tell me if I did wrong?

If your legal adviser tells you something is illegal, you probably shouldn't do it. If the government's lawyer tells them a bill is unconstitutional, then they're duty-bound not to enact it.

jobbridge4life

oscarBravo wrote: »

If your legal adviser tells you something is illegal, you probably shouldn't do it. If the government's lawyer tells them a bill is unconstitutional, then they're duty-bound not to enact it.

Only if they agreed. Given the multiplicity of opinions that exist on the legality of this bill and the doubt over whether the advice cited by the Gov was even issued in relation to this bill I'd maintain they had grounds for more than plausible deniability.

oscarBravo

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Given the multiplicity of opinions that exist on the legality of this bill...

That's, frankly, a bizarre argument that the government should have ignored the advice of the lawyer specifically tasked - by article 30 of the Constitution - with giving them legal advice.

little_scamp

nokia69 wrote: »

we don't let people under 18 vote

so you could argue that we could stop people over a certain age voting too

if people under eighteen were allowed vote , the far left would greatly increase their seats in the dail

lets hop the voting age doesnt change

K4t

little_scamp wrote: »

if people under eighteen were allowed vote , the far left would greatly increase their seats in the dail

lets hop the voting age doesnt change

A lot of people under the age of 18 have a lot more sense than those over it. Let's hope the voting age is reduced. For democracy.

oscarBravo

K4t wrote: »

Let's hope the voting age is reduced. For democracy.

Better yet, let's get rid of any lower age limit to vote. For democracy.

K4t

oscarBravo wrote: »

Better yet, let's get rid of any lower age limit to vote. For democracy.

No. You should be able to think cognitively and know that you are voting. 12 would be a fair age. The voting age should definitely be lowered to 15 at least for starters.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which is still used to study human intelligence and development in the field of psychology says that: During this stage (7-11 years), a child's thought processes become more mature and "adult like". They start solving problems in a more logical fashion. So potentially aged 7 could be argued as the right voting age, considering a lot of adults, you could say most, do not vote according to their ability to use logic or reason. Although, I would initially be in favour of lowering it to 12, that gives 5 years between the person being able to vote and the last election.

Good loser

Clare Daly and Mick Wallace knew very well their Bill was unconstitutional (they're bright enough).

This is quite clear to anybody on the basis of the wordings - without resorting to any legal opinions.

CD still decided to proceed on the basis imo of 'Here's a chance for a big political row that will embarass the Govt parties'. Think of other Bills she could have proposed that might have a hope of getting through.

It's likely the issue will be settled after the next election provided the proposals are moderate - even though wider than the CD Bill.

CD speaks passionately and articulately - though usually the logic has big holes in it.

marienbad

Good loser wrote: »

Clare Daly and Mick Wallace knew very well their Bill was unconstitutional (they're bright enough).

This is quite clear to anybody on the basis of the wordings - without resorting to any legal opinions.

CD still decided to proceed on the basis imo of 'Here's a chance for a big political row that will embarass the Govt parties'. Think of other Bills she could have proposed that might have a hope of getting through.

It's likely the issue will be settled after the next election provided the proposals are moderate - even though wider than the CD Bill.

CD speaks passionately and articulately - though usually the logic has big holes in it.

She may well have known all these things and still decided to go through with it on the notion that we keep it to the forefront of public consciousness and discussion .

And as an untended consequence showed SF to be just as good as sitting on the fence as everybody else.

gandalf

oscarBravo wrote: »

Better yet, let's get rid of any lower age limit to vote. For democracy.

Why bother given the young people who can legally vote tend not to anyway. That's why the purple rinse brigade punch above their weight in political influence.

For Reals

Godge wrote: »

Do you want to take the vote away from little grannies eating mints and going to church and bingo?

Is that how a new socialist republic would work?

Apologies for your confusion. I hope for an end to politicians swayed by the kind of people fearful of their God rather than using a fair minded common sense.
It's those on the right who marginalise, criminalise and generally take away the votes of people.

As for a new socialist republic? You'd claim to know more about how De left thinks than I.

For Reals

Eoin wrote: »

So, regarding this vote and not a referendum - what could the implications have been of passing a law that you had received advice was unconstitutional, in order to have it tested/ruled on by another body?

Was this excuse a cop out, or is it genuinely very bad practice to pass a bill that you don't think would make ultimately allowed?

I think any attention brought is a good thing.
We could sit about and have the law cited to us by rote and all go home, or discuss the issue organically and if agreed change any laws or constitution.
Kenny just played a safety shot. He has no agenda other than nodding and winking his way into a plumb EU post. He's a caretaker for the status quo which ruined us before, is and will again.

mynamejeff

Its a good bill unfortunately brought forward by a dis testable political side show. Clares antics re her drink driving and her wildly inappropriate behaviors with Wallace have tainted a important piece of law.

She is and hopefully will always be a lunatic fringe what with her senseless social and economic policy's she might end up on the shinner pay roll id she ever actually wants to get into power.

Eoin

For Reals wrote: »

I think any attention brought is a good thing.
We could sit about and have the law cited to us by rote and all go home, or discuss the issue organically and if agreed change any laws or constitution.
Kenny just played a safety shot. He has no agenda other than nodding and winking his way into a plumb EU post. He's a caretaker for the status quo which ruined us before, is and will again.

I do understand that it's good for these issues to stay in the public's consciousness; I'm just trying to separate the standard anti-government sentiment from what the actual consequences could have been if this bill was passed when there's big doubts over its legality. So far OscarBravo's reply that ignoring your appointed legal expert's advice would be stupid makes the most sense to me.

Being honest, your post is a bit soundbite-y, so I don't think it really answers my query. Perhaps the legal forum would be a better place though...

doctor_yes

mynamejeff wrote: »

Its a good bill unfortunately brought forward by a dis testable political side show. Clares antics re her drink driving and her wildly inappropriate behaviors with Wallace have tainted a important piece of law.

She is and hopefully will always be a lunatic fringe what with her senseless social and economic policy's she might end up on the shinner pay roll id she ever actually wants to get into power.

im about as far away from her politically as its possible to be but how can you be so dismissive of her situation re_ AGS when they tried to stitch her up for bringing attention to the quashing of penalty points of certain individuals in high places ?

she did the country some service when it comes to the penalty points scandal , as did mick wallace

Godge

K4t wrote: »

No. You should be able to think cognitively and know that you are voting. 12 would be a fair age. The voting age should definitely be lowered to 15 at least for starters.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which is still used to study human intelligence and development in the field of psychology says that: During this stage (7-11 years), a child's thought processes become more mature and "adult like". They start solving problems in a more logical fashion. So potentially aged 7 could be argued as the right voting age, considering a lot of adults, you could say most, do not vote according to their ability to use logic or reason. Although, I would initially be in favour of lowering it to 12, that gives 5 years between the person being able to vote and the last election.

If someone is mature enough to vote, shouldn't they be mature enough to drive, get married, smoke cigarettes, leave school, drink alcohol, have sex and all the other things adults can do that they can't?

I certainly believe this and would be in favour of harmonising the legal age for all these things. What that age should be I am open to, but 12 is way too low.

mynamejeff

doctor_yes wrote: »

im about as far away from her politically as its possible to be but how can you be so dismissive of her situation re_ AGS when they tried to stitch her up for bringing attention to the quashing of penalty points of certain individuals in high places ?

she did the country some service when it comes to the penalty points scandal , as did mick wallace

As with most AGS stories you only ever get the one side of a story due to AGS not being allowed to speak to the press to answer such allagations (2005 garda siochana act). Just because she says something happened one way doesn't mean its so.
Wouldnt be the first time she has started talking when she only has half the facts or un truths.
As for wally Wallace, this is a man who previously sued the gardai for asking him to stop blocking traffic(paid off by the state at the height of the boom rather than a costly court case) as well as being on the fringe of various frauds and non payment of people through his company. The only one he is in service to is himself

conorh91

Godge wrote: »

The 1993 Supreme Court decision on cabinet confidentiality holds precedence.

Godge wrote: »

When was the last time AG's advice was published?

Cabinet Confidentiality is the answer.

Actually I believe 1994 is the answer to your latter point. The Government have published the AG's legal opinion on two previous occasions.

I'm not saying they should publish it in this instance. I can understand why it might tend to undermine the Office of the AG.

Cabinet confidentiality is no barrier, and the AG is not a member of Cabinet.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If your legal adviser tells you something is illegal, you probably shouldn't do it. If the government's lawyer tells them a bill is unconstitutional, then they're duty-bound not to enact it.

This also is not true.

The Government is bound not to knowingly enact legislation which is incompatible with the Constitution. Opinion on the constitutionality of a bill may flow from the AG's opinion, but the Government are obviously free to seek a second opinion from eminent lawyers; or to form an alternative opinion if for example (as was the case with Tom O'Higgins, Brian Lenihan and Michael McDowell) eminent lawyers were members of the Government.

To suggest that the Government is bound by the AG's opinion would make an autocracy of her Office, and cannot be true.

They are certainly bound by their belief in the constitutionality of a bill, whether that belief comes from the AG, or from a different reputable source.

K4t

Godge wrote: »

If someone is mature enough to vote, shouldn't they be mature enough to drive, get married, smoke cigarettes, leave school, drink alcohol, have sex and all the other things adults can do that they can't?

I certainly believe this and would be in favour of harmonising the legal age for all these things. What that age should be I am open to, but 12 is way too low.

Interesting..


Legal age you can work and pay taxes = 14
Legal age you can drive a car or leave school = 16
Legal age you can have sex = 17
Legal age you can drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes =18


Legal age you can be charged for a criminal offence = 10 (for murder, manslaughter, rape and aggravated sexual assault)
Legal age you can be charged for other criminal offences = 12


Looking at the minimum ages for various different things you mentioned and more, it would appear that 14 would be a fair age to be allowed to vote considering you can work and pay taxes and you have the ability to use reason and logic in your thinking? Although I'd take 16 with both hands and one vote if it was offered.

Littlekittylou

Perhaps this deserves it's own thread I am unsure. But I was woefully disappointed over the rejection of Claire Daly's feotal abnormalities bill.104 votes to 20.

I don't believe that amount of TD's really personally hold those views to THAT extent. It's not possible they do not know someone who has had an abortion especially in the case of abnormalities.

I think the fact that she is so out of the system works against her actually achieving things sometimes. She can never get enough onside but if she were to, no doubt it's selling out.

I think it's merely protecting party interests.

Also all the TD's had not been briefed on the Attorney General's advice. All members of the Dáil should be told of the Attorney General's advice on the bill if one group of deputies were.

The Taoiseach said the Attorney General gave formal legal advice to the Cabinet that the bill is unconstitutional and there are no documents other than that. But on what basis is it unconstitutional? It does not give much leave to alter it does it or to refute that?

Minister for Health Leo Varadkar has previously said the current abortion laws are too restrictive and, in relation to terminations in cases involving fatal foetal abnormalities, he said he will be recommending to his party that it is dealt with in the next Dáil.

To all the mothers and dads and families out there who will face a diagnosis like this in the future and to those who have already have their grief and pain compounded by the cold heartless cowardice of our politicians, I am truly sorry. You are unwitting and unwilling heroes. I’m just so ashamed and so sorry for all of you.

ezra_pound

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Only if they agreed. Given the multiplicity of opinions that exist on the legality of this bill and the doubt over whether the advice cited by the Gov was even issued in relation to this bill I'd maintain they had grounds for more than plausible deniability.

I'm sorry but anyone who knows anything about constitutional law knows that this is not constitutional.

I find it hard to believe that CD actually thinks it is.

Even if she does, I wouldn't really value her position on constitutional law, would you?

jobbridge4life

ezra_pound wrote: »

I'm sorry but anyone who knows anything about constitutional law knows that this is not constitutional.

I'm sorry but I'd like to read your justification for such an ambitious declaration.

ezra_pound

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'd like to read your justification for such an ambitious declaration.

Because constitutionally the mother's life must be in real and substantial risk in order for abortion to be legal.

And that is a fact.

conorh91

ezra_pound wrote: »

Because constitutionally the mother's life must be in real and substantial risk in order for abortion to be legal.

And that is a fact.

You're locating the argument in the wrong place. The question is not whether the mother's life is at risk, the question turns on whether an unborn who is hopelessly close to death is entitled to have his 'life-support' turned off, if that life-support is a uterus as opposed to a ventilator.

It's not as clear-cut as you might think. There is a real debate about this.

jobbridge4life

ezra_pound wrote: »

Because constitutionally the mother's life must be in real and substantial risk in order for abortion to be legal.

And that is a fact.

No it isn't and that is a fact.

ezra_pound

conorh91 wrote: »

You're locating the argument in the wrong place. The question is not whether the mother's life is at risk, the question turns on whether an unborn who is hopelessly close to death is entitled to have his 'life-support' turned off, if that life-support is a uterus as opposed to a ventilator.

It's not as clear-cut as you might think. There is a real debate about this.

The supreme court is pretty clear cut about it:

Roche v Roche 2009

"Human life before birth without exception "

In my view the subsection 3 of Article 40.3. is clear in its intent. It is intended to protect human life before birth. The key words in the English version are “life of the unborn” and in particular, in my view the much more apt expression, “mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha (beo in its genitive case). I think “ceart na mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha” can be fairly interpreted as meaning the right of life not yet born to live, or to its life.
The provision does not refer to the right to life of the unborn ‘child’ or ‘foetus’. No doubt because that could have compromised the meaning of life by raising questions as to when human life, after it had commenced, whether on conception or on implantation, could be characterised or defined as that of the child or the foetus.
Thus, Article 40.3.3. focuses on human life before birth without exception. It did not purport to confer a right but to protect a right acknowledged to exist. It commences with the words “The State acknowledges the right to life …” and sought, in a positive rather than prohibitive form, to protect that life while at the same time it made clear that the provision should not be interpreted as in any way undermining the right to life of the mother. As I said, I will address that particular proviso in due course, but for the moment, suffice it to say, in my view the provision seeks to acknowledge that human life before birth and after birth, with the specific reference to the life of the mother, are worthy of equal value and respect.
So far as the wording in the English version is concerned it refers to “right to life of the unborn” and if the English language permitted it, it might have fitted more readily with the Irish language version if it referred to “The right to life of the unborn life” but that would have been, in English, both an inelegant and tautologous form of wording for insertion in the Constitution.

ezra_pound

Look, I agree that this issue needs to be addressed but clearly it's a constitutional matter and needs to be ratified by referendum.

conorh91

ezra_pound wrote: »

The supreme court is pretty clear cut about it:

Roche v Roche 2009

No. Again, you're focusing on the wrong issue.

Fatal foetal abnormality cases are more comparable to the Supreme Court case of In re a Ward of Court, concerning the right to a dignified death; or a 2013 case (unreported) in which in which following an emergency application by the HSE (and the child's parents on consent) the High Court made orders allowing doctors to withdraw medical treatment and not resuscitate a three-week-old baby whose condition was described as “hopeless” and painful, and whose life prospects were described as “bleak and remote“.

In granting the orders, the High Court was of the opinion that further treatment would not be in the child's best interests and that doctors could withdraw medical treatment which would lead to his death within an hour.

Clearly there are circumstances in which individuals (born and unborn) simply cannot avail of their constitutional right to life. In those circumstances, there is legitimate debate regarding how, and when, a life should be no longer maintained.

ezra_pound

NOTICE:

Claire Daly will be discussing the constitutionality of the bill with a legal academic on the this week show this afternoon.

ezra_pound

ezra_pound wrote: »

NOTICE:

Claire Daly will be discussing the constitutionality of the bill with a legal academic on the this week show this afternoon.

Apologies. It was actually Ivana Bacik.

jobbridge4life

ezra_pound wrote: »

Look, I agree that this issue needs to be addressed but clearly it's a constitutional matter and needs to be ratified by referendum.

Clearly it involves constitutional matters but there is no guarantee that it requires ratification via referendum.

FreudianSlippers

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Clearly it involves constitutional matters but there is no guarantee that it requires ratification via referendum.

I think they're two separate issues. The law wouldn't require ratification by referendum, it would only need to pass the Supreme Court test of constitutionality if it was passed by the Oireachtas (specifically the "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" issue). The separate issue is plebiscite to amend/repeal the 8th Amendment.

jobbridge4life

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think they're two separate issues. The law wouldn't require ratification by referendum, it would only need to pass the Supreme Court test of constitutionality if it was passed by the Oireachtas (specifically the "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" issue). The separate issue is plebiscite to amend/repeal the 8th Amendment.

This is the essence of my point. Anything regarding terminating a pregnancy/aborting an unborn/'killing a baby' necessarily involves the Constitution by virtue of Article 40.3.3. That people regularly cite this Article, (itself an amendment) as conclusive proof with regard to anything demonstrates either an ignorance of constitutional law or wilful bias.

Baggy Trousers

When is Daly going to hear about the investigation into her OTT arrest?

conorh91

jobbridge4life wrote: »

This is the essence of my point. Anything regarding terminating a pregnancy/aborting an unborn/'killing a baby' necessarily involves the Constitution by virtue of Article 40.3.3. That people regularly cite this Article, (itself an amendment) as conclusive proof with regard to anything demonstrates either an ignorance of constitutional law or wilful bias.

Agreed. Anytime a person says an issue is 'certain' in constitutional jurisprudence, despite not having previously been addressed by the courts, be very suspicious.

If this statement is made on an internet forum, you can easily triple your suspicion.

Of all the areas of law, constitutional more than any of them is an art and not a science.

FreudianSlippers

conorh91 wrote: »

Agreed. Anytime a person says an issue is 'certain' in constitutional jurisprudence, despite not having previously been addressed by the courts, be very suspicious.

If this statement is made on an internet forum, you can easily triple your suspicion.

Of all the areas of law, constitutional more than any of them is an art and not a science.

I certainly didn't suggest anything was certain.