go to the referendum commission site. it should help you
Someone is very cranky today. Did the brazzer disappear with your wallet this morning or something?
Cheers Art
why not? theyre human. unitl we develop judgement pronouncing robots we will be subject to human judgement which isnt infallible.
You can say that pay shouldnt affect them but it will.
the other thing to bear in mind tcm, is that judges are generally loathe to speak about any referenda. unsurprisingly, the first referenda they actually comment on before the electorate have their say is the one on judicial pay
The bottom line is that judges are amongst the best paid people in this state. If their pay is cut they will remain so.
Would you agree that if a judge lets a pay cut cloud his impartiality he has no business as a judge?
Iâll echo Fooleyâs point - did pay rises cloud the independence and impartiality of the judiciary? If yes, again theyâve no business being in the judiciary.
The judiciary are simply looking to preserve their lifestyles and exempt themselves from the rest of society. They can go and fuck.
So the fear is, that the government of the day could pressure the judiciary into a decision by threatening to reduce their pay?
So what is the mechanism made available to the government by this amendment? Presumably it isnât something that could be done in secret, and therefore if the government did try to pressure the judiciary in this manner it would be an extremely public move?
No not at all. Itâs just that some days I get annoyed seeing people make tits of themselves Mac. [quote=âMac, post: 629953â]
Someone is very cranky today. Did the brazzer disappear with your wallet this morning or something?
[/quote]
I assume most of you are too young to remember the Cosgrave government and the running battle they had with elements of the judiciary who were intent on upholding citizens rights in the face of another national âemergencyâ
jimmy drunkard deenihan and cearbhail o dhalaigh?
[quote=âartfoley, post: 629961â]
jimmy drunkard deenihan and cearbhail o dhalaigh?
[/quote]Yeah I was right ye donât remember it. That was Paddy Donegan and O Dalaigh was president. Though the comparison is apt. The FGers were content to demean the President in whatever way they could because he exercised his right to refer emergency legislation to the Supreme Court.
Is that when OâDalaigh was called a thundering bollocks? Not that relevant to the referendum, beyond the fact that tension exists between the different institutions which should be obvious anyway.
No obviously totally irrelevant wtb. Much more relevant to feed peoples jealousy that judges get paid more than them. [quote=âWatch The Break, post: 629963â]
Is that when OâDalaigh was called a thundering bollocks? Not that relevant to the referendum, beyond the fact that tension exists between the different institutions which should be obvious anyway.
[/quote]
narrow enough view sid, they are high pais individuals, but no doubt theres others in civil jobs getting more. youre making very broad and sweeping statements which have no facutal basis.
Withr regard to arts point, did anyone complain during the celtic tiger that they were getting paid too much, those rises are regretted now but its no the judiciarys fault. Theres similar problems in all civil sectors, people on too high a pay rate and they cant be sacked.
with all due respect tcm, if youre going to plead judicial independence and interference in judicial function, it goes both ways. surely if a judge can be cowed by having his pay cut then surely he can be bought by increasing. there would be no need for this referendum if it wasnt for the judges. the memo on the courts website made it clear that they would oppose any legislative means of applying the pension levy or pay cut to them. a large majority made voluntary contributions but this was only on the pension levy and not the 10-15% paycut. so now it comes to this and joe soap doesnt give a toss about the judicial independence of mrs brian lenihan et al
in my own opinion art they should have voluntarily taken a cut, as this would have prevented any issue with regard to the seperation of powers, which ,as you know, was the porblem with the legislation in the first place.
I fully expect this referendum to get a yes vote as people arent being educated about it properly and there is little to no debatre.
With regard to abbylara i hope people are wise enough to se the inherent dangers of passing such a provisionâŚ
The judicial pay amendment is possibly unnecessary, which annoys me. I think the wording of it is tight enough that it doesnât compromise judicial independence though, so I donât think it will do any harm either. I donât like the principle of running a referendum without testing if one is needed. As far as I know, and Iâm not an expert, what little precedent there is for a similar case in the past (which I think involved a judgeâs widow challenging an increased tax on his pension but again I could be wrong) suggests that the Supreme Court could find that even with the current wording a cut in the judicial pay in line with other public servants would be constitutional. Why not reduce their pay, see if one of them would challenge it and let it play out in court before running a referendum? Changing the Constitution should be the last resort, not the first.
youre right braz, obyrne vs revenue commissioners is the case. they could have quite written a judicial pay bill and had the president refer it to the supreme court to check it for constitutionality, then again, would it be considered a money bill and how would the maxim of ânemo iudex in sua causaâ wotk. still a mess but no need for referendum as i said in op
This is one of the most important points on the proposed Oireatchtas powers from what Iâve read:
'If the proposed amendment is approved, an inquiry conducted by either or both Houses of the Oireachtas would have the power to make a finding that a person had, for example, behaved in a corrupt manner or been responsible for the unlawful killing of another person. The only limitation on the findings that may be made are that they must concern the matter to which the inquiry relates.
Such a finding would, however, be different from any decisions made by a court of law about a personâs conduct. A decision that a person has committed a crime and is to be imprisoned and/or fined can be made only by a court. A decision by an Oireachtas inquiry that a person had, for example, unlawfully killed another person could not, on that determination alone, result in that person being imprisoned and/or fined. The Houses of the Oireachtas would not have the power to apply a criminal sanction to the person concerned. Similarly, a decision that a person is responsible for a civil wrong, for example, that the person defamed another, and should pay compensation, can also be made only by a court. An Oireachtas inquiry could not make an award of damages, nevertheless, such a finding could clearly affect that personâs good name, a right which is specifically protected by the Constitution.â
A lot of the criticism seems to be somewhat hysterical in light of that point.
In terms of what it might actually mean in practice, looking at the last 12 months, the public outcry over the banking scandal would have unquestionably led to the likes of Fingleton and Seanie Fitzpatrick being hauled before a public inquiry. I imagine these chaps and their ilk are not too eager to allow such a mechanism to come into existence. Better a slow moving and horrendously expensive tribunal that drags on for years and makes findings long after the public have forgotten about it.
Thereâs obviously a danger associated with the strengthening of Oireachtas powers, but the fact is the tribunal system is a sick joke. If thereâs a happy medium Iâd like to hear it but surely something has to change.
Impressive off the cuff legal opinion there from Foley.