Ireland politics (Part 1)

I meant to post about this. I know nothing about this referendum but Kennys refusal to debate it is almost prompting me to vote no. Can we get Foley back to explain the courts one for us? I couldn’t be arsed reading the referendum guide.

They discussed courts one on morning Ireland and it’s safe enough to vote yes on that.
The only objections was that they threw in another bit to the legislation meaning that each judge in a supreme court verdict will be required to publish their thinking on why they came to a particular conclusion on constitutional matters. At the moment just the majority conclusion is published.

We need a new appeal court to speed up the backlog in cases at Supreme Court. At least that’s what my lawyer nephew says.

Ask him why not have more supreme court judges? I reckon I’ll vote yes on this one as nobody seems to be really objecting to it.

Getting rid of the Seanad is a no-brainer I think. The arguments in favour of keeping it are fairly spurious. It would be a small move in making the pace of legislation less glacially slow. the fewer politicians the better. Enda’s failure to debate is pathetic alright.

[quote=“corner back, post: 837637, member: 1572”]Ask him why not have more supreme court judges? I reckon I’ll vote yes on this one as nobody seems to be really objecting to it.

Getting rid of the Seanad is a no-brainer I think. The arguments in favour of keeping it are fairly spurious. It would be a small move in making the pace of legislation less glacially slow. the fewer politicians the better. Enda’s failure to debate is pathetic alright.[/quote]
The reason not to have more judges is that the SC becomes the arena for important constitutional and other type cases, with less societally important cases being dealt with by the new appeal court.

This is probably not the absolute best way to improve the courts system and won’t do anything to tackle the main problem with the system in Ireland which is access to the courts. It is an improvement though.

On the judgements change, I don’t see the reason for this. The reason judges weren’t compelled to publish individual judgements was so that individual judges would be immune from political pressure. They could still deliver a desperate judgement if they chose to. I can’t see any reason to change this and haven’t come across a rationale for it.

All in all it’s probably positive to vote yes to the courts amendment.

The Irish Supreme court dealt with twice as many cases last year as the US Supreme court.
The Supreme court is supposed to be reserved for serious business, not dealing with every half arsed appeal.

[quote=“TreatyStones, post: 837696, member: 1786”]The Irish Supreme court dealt with twice as many cases last year as the US Supreme court.
The Supreme court is supposed to be reserved for serious business, not dealing with every half arsed appeal.[/quote]
Exactly. But then the US SC is the final court of appeal for 50 states, not really comparable.

Twice as many as the Supreme court in England so.

Again, massive disparity in population size. But in any event yeah, the amendment will help.

Yes, that’s my point. Our Supreme court is dealing with way too many cases for a country of this size.

I’ll post up a critique of the proposed Court of Appeal referendum tomorrow. Not arsed doing it now.

Looks like im for a tough night’s sleep on the edge of my seat so…

You should get on to SVP about that. I know the current climate ensures the poverty line is raised higher, but nobody should be forced to sleep on the edge of a seat.

I see Kenny has pulled out if the tv debate on abolishing the Seanad. How the fuck can anyone vote for this change now when the guy that proposed it can’t even go on tv and debate it?

Don’t think it would matter who he is debating against whether it be Norris or martin or who ever Kenny was never going to debate this on tv. He doesn’t really believe in abolishing the Seanad himself, if he did he would have no problem debating that decision. Kenny is a wimp and a coward. A fucking disgrace.

[quote=“tazdedub, post: 838244, member: 312”]I see Kenny has pulled out if the tv debate on abolishing the Seanad. How the fuck can anyone vote for this change now when the guy that proposed it can’t even go on tv and debate it?

Don’t think it would matter who he is debating against whether it be Norris or martin or who ever Kenny was never going to debate this on tv. He doesn’t really believe in abolishing the Seanad himself, if he did he would have no problem debating that decision. Kenny is a wimp and a coward. A fucking disgrace.[/quote]

Pearce Doherty will debate with Michael “Bobby Ewing” Martin! but he won’t agree to it! Im no friend of FG but the one good policy is getting rid of the Seanad… It’s useless. M Martin wants to reform it??? FF monopolised it for all the years he was by Bertie’s side. Don’t be taken in by the cronies who are touting to keep it…FF to gain one up and the likes of barrister PD Michael McDowell who after twice been told to fuck off by the people wants to come back and order us around.

The 1916 proclamation cherished and respected everyone, not certain people who could vote and those who couldn’t…bin the Seanad…

I just wish @Blake were here to make sense of this whole thing for me.

[quote=“Ebeneezer Goode, post: 838341, member: 1785”]Pearce Doherty will debate with Michael “Bobby Ewing” Martin! but he won’t agree to it! Im no friend of FG but the one good policy is getting rid of the Seanad… It’s useless. M Martin wants to reform it??? FF monopolised it for all the years he was by Bertie’s side. Don’t be taken in by the cronies who are touting to keep it…FF to gain one up and the likes of barrister PD Michael McDowell who after twice been told to fuck off by the people wants to come back and order us around.

The 1916 proclamation cherished and respected everyone, not certain people who could vote and those who couldn’t…bin the Seanad…[/quote]
Bang on the money. FF had their chances to reform it and chose not to. There have been some decent senators but few who are full time politicians. The odd decent t contributor would make more of an impact by going on Prime Time or Vincent Browne than speaking in the Seanad.

The Seanad needs reform for years, that’s not a reason to abolish it. We gain nothing by abolishing the Seanad.

We lose nothing either. It is utterly irrelevant surely

The Seanad does nothing, get rid of it. The Dail needs reform.