Constitutional Convention: lack of balance

Actor wrote: »

She's not a professor given the fullest sense of the word. She got a mickey-mouse professorship from Trinity that's handed down from feminist to feminist. She's a professional politician, not an academic.

I'm sorry, but do you have anything to back that up? "Reid professor of Criminal law, criminology and penology" is the title, and its been in existence since the 1800's. Her CV gives her the appearance of an academic far more than a politician.

Actor wrote: »

Proper professors are appointed on the professor pay scale. Reid "professor" of law is on the lecturer scale.

It's still a chair, its been there since the 1880's and she is, by all appearances, eminently qualified in the field.

Now, do you have something concrete to add?

jank wrote: »

I think the OP's concerns are that her personal politcal veiws will try and shape the debate of the convention. Ill give her the benifit of the doubt but if hear **** like "everyone should have a human right to a job" then ill be bitterly dissapointed.

Considering that she's one of 7 labour members, that she is not in fact the designated leader of the group, and that the other parties will be nominating delegations based on the size of their representation in the dail, I fail to see how she could possibly "shape the debate of the convention".

In addition, the convention itself is limited to debating some fixed issues, as far as I understand it, and does not have unlimited scope.

jank wrote: »

We both know how these things work. Certain personalities will or at least try and shape the scope and debate of such things. Least just see what they come out with. I can imagine the outcry of the left if someone like Michael O Leary was on the convention panel. They would probably ballot for a strike!

Hilarious.

You'll find in a structured enviroment with a set agenda, theres a distinct limit to what "personalities" can acheive, particularily when theres the question of party allegiance and party lines to take into account.

Actor wrote: »

I hope to God that it will be compromise after compromise resulting in little or no change. These hardline lefties are desperate to introduce abortion-on-demand before their term ends.

You seem to be rather confused as to whats happening here - these are the issues before the convention

"We will establish a Constitutional Convention to consider comprehensive
constitutional reform, with a brief to consider, as a whole or in sub-groups,
and report within 12 months on the following:

• Review of our Dáil electoral system.
• Reducing the presidential term to 5 years and aligning it with the local and European
  elections
• Provision for same-sex marriage.
• Amending the clause on women in the home and encourage greater participation of women in public life.
• Removing blasphemy from the Constitution
• Possible reduction of the voting age.
• Other relevant constitutional amendments that may be recommended by the
  Convention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(Ireland)

Anything brought up would then have to be approved by referendum.

jank wrote: »

So the issue of electoral quotas will be up for discussion! Well that's Ivana's baby. I suppose its the only she can get directly elected.

Other than personal digs at Ivana Bacik, do you have anything to add?