Virtue signalling gobdaw Michael Higgins puts his foot in it again

You were observed in engaging in climate change denial and you rightly got roasted.

Didn't actually remember that until this post helpfully reminded me of it, but it obviously still rankles with you.

'Pseudo-intellect'? I'm not the smartest bear to ever emerge from the woods, but I actually engage my brain unlike yourself.

People aren't allowed own houses and have opinions at the same time in Blaazland apparently.

Ah but it is your position Blazziepops.

The big H is written all over your posts. What happens when those liberally accusing others of hypocrisy engage in hypocrisy themselves? You get wormholes of stupidity like this thread.

MDH did nothing wrong in his private affairs and in his capacity of Presdient with those comments. He didn't even engage in the big H.

One of your posts opened with calling the President "a toxic little turd".

You have no place in this thread or any standing to speak about intelligent or substantive contributions.

To get specific about it. It doesn't matter what I think, even though I think dole bashers are generally dunderheads.

But let's run with your hypothesis. If the people elected someone who went off on mad ones regularly regarding government policy regarding dole , there are a number of barriers to successful impeachment.

1. Let's say the government is sufficiently enraged at the comments (and this goes for MDH as well).

First they need a two-thirds of either house of the Oireachtas to successfully move an impeachment (extremely unlikely in MDH's case, who knows with your hypothesis)

2. The second barrier is a point of law. The Oireachtas can only remove a President for "a stated misbehaviour"

"A stated misbehaviour" is not defined in law, and we don't have precedent (although we came close on a couple of occasions with moves against judges, but it was never tested as they retired). It's commonly understood to be an illegal act, and in an impeachment process, it would almost certainly pass to the Supreme Court on a challenge and the SC would have to define what this means.

Would you get a majority in the Supreme Court to say MDH's (or indeed your hypothetical dole bashing Prez) comments consist of "a stated misbehaviour" even if barrier 1 was hurdled? Constitutional scholars when running this hypothesis usually land on the likelyhood that the President would have to have prima facie commited an illegal act for the SC to do something as extraordinary as remove a president.

Thet usually concern themselves with matters of greater importance other than obsessing about a perfectly legal transaction.

If he's "not entitled" to do it, where are the articles of impeachment? And indeed where's the swell of public opinion besides the armpit of malcontents on the internet demanding it?

Here's a legal fact you need to reconcile yourself with, there is precisely zero in the constitutional or legal order restraining MDH from speaking in the manner in which he did.

He was in fact, was perfectly entitled to utter what he did.

Now there's a conspiracy theory even David Icke would be shy to hang his tinfoil hat on.

RTE are apparently telling porkies about the reality of our constitutional and legal order because...God... you'll have to fill in the blanks for me on this...