General Irish politics discussion thread

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547082#Comment_121547082

The government can bring a motion before the Dáil - to begin the process.

Water John

Which I presume they will, on the advice of the AG. Then all the info available is laid before the two houses, who decide.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547203#Comment_121547203

The question remains so, why do they need the advice of the AG to take a path laid out in the Constitution and why would the MoJ not say that was their intention.

IMO it was the time for a strong unambiguous statement, not a kick to touch.

Water John

Not taking legal advice first, would never be a good option.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547551#Comment_121547551

I don't see the problem with laying out what the governments intentions are. She would have been fully legally compliant mapping out what is in the constitution.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547632#Comment_121547632

You are assuming that politicians are familiar with Constitutional law and know that what they expect should happen will apply in each case. Any politician who mouths off about sacking a judge without having first checked the legal processes are sound is likely to create a situation where the judge cannot be removed e.g. the process becomes legally questionable because it is a political decision. As I said previously, I'd be concerned if any politician did this and I'd question their suitability for office!

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547702#Comment_121547702

She's the Minister with plenty of advisers.

There is a legal constitutional path and she didn't mention it while talking up a 'zero tolerance' approach.

I just find that curiously inept to be honest. A Minister out of her depth is a good description of her to date tbh.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547728#Comment_121547728

Right, I'm not going to continue down this rabbit hole. I believe it would be incredibly stupid for her or any Minister to comment on the process that will be followed to dismiss a sitting judge without first checking with the AG that the process would be appropriate and legally watertight for the situation.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547843#Comment_121547843

Fair enough.

I again would wonder what other 'processes' would be 'appropriate'.

As with others before you, you are alluding to the idea that there may be a range or menu of options available. That is a bit of a worry tbh.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547860#Comment_121547860

There is a range of options available to them: cock it up and don't cock it up!

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547874#Comment_121547874

We're in a bit of trouble if saying you are going to follow the route mapped out by the constitution is going to 'cock things up' Seth, don't you think?

Seth Brundle

Our constitution is often being challenged and sometimes the challenge is successful. Do you think that the constitutional process cannot be successfully challenged for a particular reason? You'd be a fool to assume so!

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121547974#Comment_121547974

How is the AG going to advise against a challenge to the constitution?

There is only the constitutional option to remove a judge.

moon2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121548006#Comment_121548006

To summarize your position: You fully support what the government are doing, but you want it done faster. Great! Glad to see you want the law followed just as much as the government do.

Somehow you're dressing up your support of the government finalizing the last phase of the process as something problematic. You're clutching at straws trying to find some way, any way, to criticize the government for taking the correct course of action, and ensuring it's done correctly.

I've never seen so much handwringing over nothing.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121548128#Comment_121548128

I'd expect any democrat would support the removal of a convicted judge from office.

I am just passing comment on an Irish political forum. If that is 'handwringing' so be it.

hotmail.com

From memory (as this convicted judge issue comes up from time to time) a judge can be removed if 2 thirds of the Dail vote to remove him/her.

Not sure it's ever been done, as usually the judge resigns themselves.

There hasn't been any moves to remove ineffective/rubbish judges. It does seem bizarre that a judge can't be sacked from their job just like anyone else.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121548390#Comment_121548390

You mean sacked like any other civil servant?

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121548493#Comment_121548493

Well it is difficult to sack a civil servant but it does happen.

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121548390#Comment_121548390

Judges should always be a special case and should always have special protection. In any democratic state it's important that there is a separation of powers between the government of the day and the judiciary.

There is always the danger that a government could always abuse any process to get rid of judges so they can install judges who are more "favourable" to them.

I'd agree that judges should be removed however any government needs to thread carefully not to undermine the independence of the judiciary. It's critical to the functioning of the state.

The idea that any government should rush this decision shows a lack of understanding of how serious it is for a government to make the decision to remove a judge. That's regardless of how deserved the removal is.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121550284#Comment_121550284

The 'decision' has been made by the provision in the constitution. Unless you are suggesting there are other 'options' to removing a convicted judge.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121550284#Comment_121550284

So no solution to getting rid of rubbish judges?

I suppose mandatory sentences removes a lot of the powers of judges anyway.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121550329#Comment_121550329

Does the decision to remove a judge using the constitution allow for any right of appeal, any possibility of wrongful dismissal or is there any potential for the process to be done incorrectly, however small that possibility might be?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121550999#Comment_121550999

Every citizen has the right to challenge the constitutionality of a decision, including judges I presume, Seth.

The AG can not prevent that.

Why will none of you answer what I asked...'do you think the AG will present a menu of options to the MoJ/Government?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121551008#Comment_121551008

I'm not a legal expert so cannot predict what the AG might say when it comes to a constitutional matter such as this. However, the MoJ (not anyone else in Cabinet IIRC) is not a legal expert either and is following the correct course if action in getting advice from the government's legal advisor. There may be nothing to advise on or the government could be facing a massive amount of legal minefield but your belief that the Minister should just proceed with a certain process does not make for prudent governance.

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121550993#Comment_121550993

Rubbish is unfortunately subjective. Any government/Dail decision to remove a judge is extremely serious as it potentially brings the independence of the judiciary into question.

Even in obvious cases of serious offences it still needs to be done in a very careful manner to ensure at the very least the perceived independence of the judiciary is maintained. That's what the government is doing. Saying it should be done quicker or it should be easier to do is completely misunderstanding of how serious a decision it is for any government proposing it and the TDs who decide on it.

One of the ways you break a democracy is get rid of judges who are prepared to uphold the law and installs judges who happy to see it bent all out of shape.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121551388#Comment_121551388

I said the Minister should have said that the government would take the constitutional route and remove this convicted judge. Then she could have mentioned 'in consultation with the AG'.

I just think it was extremely weak from a Minister talking zero tolerance.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121551409#Comment_121551409

I'm not sure it's that serious to sack the odd rubbish judge.

hotmail.com

Another building incorrectly thought of as a refugee centre burned down in Ringsend last night.

This is a huge problem for the government and the country.

What next? A building with refugees inside it is attacked and burned down? It wouldn't surprise me the way law and order has broken down here.

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121551871#Comment_121551871

Which means you don't understand the how important and critical an independent judiciary is to a democratic state. It's for this exact reason we need a independent judiciary to protect citizens from mob rule. Being rubbish is not a reason to remove a judge only in the most extreme situations. Your post is an perfect example of why an independent judiciary is important and why it needs to be protected.

While judges will always need to be removed in certain extreme circumstances it needs to be handled extremely carefully as it means the government is interfering with the judiciary. These are 2 different and independent bodies as part our democracy and removing a judge by the government/Dail is a breach of this independence. It has to be handled extremely carefully and as a result slowly. To suggest any government should rush to remove any judge under any circumstance shows a lack of understanding of the Irish constitution and democracy in general.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121554115#Comment_121554115

How more careful can you be by using the path laid down in the constitution? His conviction isn't going to dilute as time moves on.

And the idea a judge can only be removed in 'extreme circumstances' is dubious in the extreme as well. Anyone not competent should be removed.