Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

supreme court dissents

Options
  • 14-07-2006 1:24pm
    #1
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭


    does anyone think we should have dissents in the supreme court.

    i do. they can clarify the issues involved.
    is the lack of dissent just another example of a lazy supreme court that that lacks the intellectual ability and honesty to be up to the job?

    MM


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    dermot_sheehan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    Remember that in cases involving the constitutionality of post-1937 statutes the court must speak with one voice and dissents can't be given.

    Also one problem with dissents is that you could have nine judgements, all giving different reasons for why the found for the applicant/respondent which makes it very difficult to know what the law is.


  • Options
    #3
    focusing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭focusing


    Right,

    1. We do have dissenting judgements in the Supreme Court.

    Look at http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2001/63.html for example.

    2. You couldn't have 9 judgements when they only sit in panels of 3, 5 and (rarely) 7.

    3. Article 26 is an exception, where the court speaks with one voice because of the finality involved.


  • Options
    #4
    dermot_sheehan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    focusing wrote:
    Right,

    1. We do have dissenting judgements in the Supreme Court.

    Look at http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2001/63.html for example.

    2. You couldn't have 9 judgements when they only sit in panels of 3, 5 and (rarely) 7.

    3. Article 26 is an exception, where the court speaks with one voice because of the finality involved.
    I think question is on the desirability of dissents. De Valera made the Supreme Court only speak with one voice when deciding on the constitutionality of post-1937 laws, either through an art. 26 reference or in ordinary pleadings (art. 26.2.2 and art. 34.4.5). The idea was it created greater certainty, the constitutional review group however has called for the removal of these articles referring to the great contribution to jurisprudence dissenting judgements give, the idea being yesterday's dissent is tomorrow's majority judgement (for example look at Holmes J.'s great dissenting judgement in the U.S. in Lochner v. New York


  • Options
    #5
    padser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭padser


    mountainyman wrote:
    does anyone think we should have dissents in the supreme court.

    i do. they can clarify the issues involved.
    is the lack of dissent just another example of a lazy supreme court that that lacks the intellectual ability and honesty to be up to the job?

    MM

    As Focusing pointed out we do have dissenting judgements from the SC in almost all cases (art 26 excluded) so I dont think the SC 'lacks the intellectual ability or honesty' to be up to the job'.

    It in the one example where they dont issue dissenting judgements this is not of their own choosing. It is stipulated in the constitution.

    Please explain why on earth you would feel that them not issueing dissenting judgements would mean they lack 'honesty', even if they had a choice in the matter.


Advertisement