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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

secular supreme court judge??

  • 28-12-2007 7:17pm
    #1
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭


    hey guys, just trolling through old past papers for constitutional law and seen the same type of question twice:

    Q:
    Marshall Douglas has just been offered the position of an ordinary justice of the Irish Supreme Court. For many years Marshall has been an advocate of a secular constitution and is a confirmed atheist. Are there any potential obstacles to Marshall being made a Supreme Court justice?

    just wondering could anyone outline how they would answer this question???

    the second question was almost the same but involved outlining what a constitutional lawyer would offer the judge as advice if he was against swearing in as it had a specific reference to god in the oath!


Comments

  • #2
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,549 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    I'd say that there is no conflict of interest for a judge to believe in change to the constitution. For example, Judge McGuinness was a great advocate of children's rights, and criticised the constitution for not expressly dealing with these rights. If a judge believes that the constitution should be changed to a more secular document and that the constitution should be interpreted as secularly as possible that's fine. However, it may be an issue if he has publicaly indicated that he refuses to acknowledge any religious part of the constitution. Judge McGuinness would state her opinion of how the constitution should be as obiter dicta, but would decide based on an interpretation of the constitution as it is.

    As for the second part, if he refuses to make the declaration he cannot take office. He can lobby to have a referrendum held to change this section, but there is no other way of getting around it. (Art 34.5.4)


Advertisement