Dana threatens to quit presidential race over family row

BrerWolf

Just saw this headline in the indo.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/presidential-election/dana-threatens-to-quit-presidential-race-over-family-row-2901170.html


Quick - more stories about Dana's family rows!

TwoShedsJackson

Delighted, hopefully there'll be wall to wall coverage tomorrow.

mailforkev

Good riddance.

Hope the door doesn't hit her arse too hard on the way out.

subway

the presidential equivalent of a temple bar drunk getting his mates to hold him back while shouting "let me go, i'll kill him" at a 7 foot russian bouncer

Sponge Bob

Ah no, she is just refusing to discuss it now

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1010/breaking19.html

Min

Dana better stay in the race, I got good odds she would appear on the ballot and I took them and stand to win some money, how dare anyone to want her off the ballot paper.

leonidas83

What did she expect??? tbh she has been getting off lightly compared to the other candidates thus far, sounds like she might be just looking for an easy excape route now that its blatantly obvious she has no chance of winning

28064212

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ah no, she is just refusing to discuss it now

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1010/breaking19.html

That article includes the quote of her saying she would "step out" of the race.

What she doesn't appear to realise is that no-one gives a flying f*ck about her stupid little family spat. The only thing that anyone cares about is the fact that she signed the oath renouncing her allegiance to Ireland.

She also doesn't seem to have a clue about what the powers of the Presidency. When asked whether she would sign a gay-marriage bill, she dodged the question with shíte about being discriminated against because she was Catholic. All she had to say was she would refer it to the Supreme Court.

pubview

Poor Dana. If she ever had it, she's lost it now.

RichardAnd

I think Dana is pretty harmless when all is said and done. She won't win this election but she'll probably be back in 7 years to try again. It seems she really wants to be president so she'll probably try all kinds of everything to realise that...ahem!

hotmail.com

There's 3 things about this revelation today:

1. She's been caught out to be a liar, because she never revealed she was an American citizen.

2. She can no longer talk about "broken families" when it appears that her own family aren't getting along and even went to court. Most families have problems, but very few end up in court. So he's a hyporcrit.

3. She's been exposed as greedy - She went to court over song loyalties. She claims that she never sang in America for the money.

So she's been caught out quite dramatically and she knows it. She's blaming the media now everything, a clever tactic that will play well with Catholic die-hards that believe the media is anti-Catholic.

hotmail.com

RichardAnd wrote: »

I think Dana is pretty harmless when all is said and done. She won't win this election but she'll probably be back in 7 years to try again. It seems she really wants to be president so she'll probably try all kinds of everything to realise that...ahem!

I think Dana is very dangerous.

hotmail.com

Oh and Dana also claimed that Gay Mitchell was pro-gay marriage. This is not the case, I wonder will FG clarify Mitchell's position later today.

View

Threatening to quit when you are in last place in the opinion polls isn't a very hard sacrifice to make, is it?

Her entry into the race seems to have been more of a profile raising exercise (for future elections) than a serious attempt to win.

pubview

No harm to wee Dana but I wish she, McGuinness, Norris and the rest would stop treating the electorate like fools by spinning a load of fairytales :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBRUe2_Zu8

carveone

hotmail.com wrote: »

I think Dana is very dangerous.

Agree. She does this harmless soft voiced thing but I would be terrorised at the thought of her achieving anything. Anyone even remotely aligned to SPUC or Youth Defence scares the hell out of me. Anyone else who was around in 1993, especially in College, might agree.

Rte: Dana Rosemary Scallon criticised what she claimed was an anti-Catholic bias in the media

That would be an ecumenical matter!

All she had to say was she would refer it to the Supreme Court.

Wow. The way I figure it (correct me if I'm wrong) President's should not refer things to the Supreme Court. The way I see it is that once the Supreme Court finds a Bill to be constitutional, it can never again be challenged constitutionally. Which is a bit of a problem...

(Be amusing if gay marriage was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court).

Plus there is the problem of complex Bills. If referred to the court under article 26, the court is expected to go through every little subsection of the Bill, to determine whether bit is unconstitutional. In practise, this is unmanageable.

Fr Tod Umptious

View wrote: »

Threatening to quit when you are in last place in the opinion polls isn't a very hard sacrifice to make, is it?

Her entry into the race seems to have been more of a profile raising exercise (for future elections) than a serious attempt to win.

Good point

In years to come we may develop a conservative, right wing constituency in this country and Dana would fit the roll of the public profile/voice of such a demographic.

So she may appear somewhere for the next GE

pubview

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So she may appear somewhere for the next GE

Now that Sarah Palin has ruled herself out ...

Zubeneschamali

carveone wrote: »

The way I see it is that once the Supreme Court finds a Bill to be constitutional, it can never again be challenged constitutionally. Which is a bit of a problem...

If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, then it is. Why is it a problem?

28064212

carveone wrote: »

Wow. The way I figure it (correct me if I'm wrong) President's should not refer things to the Supreme Court. The way I see it is that once the Supreme Court finds a Bill to be constitutional, it can never again be challenged constitutionally. Which is a bit of a problem...

? Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. If there is any possibility that a bill may be unconstitutional, it should definitely be referred to the Supreme court. Otherwise it will just be challenged in the courts once it comes into law

carveone wrote: »

Plus there is the problem of complex Bills. If referred to the court under article 26, the court is expected to go through every little subsection of the Bill, to determine whether bit is unconstitutional. In practise, this is unmanageable.

Which is why it's only used where there's a question over the laws constitutionality. At the moment, it's totally unknown whether gay marriage is constitutional. If the Dail created legislation allowing for it, I would totally expect it to be referred to the Supreme Court

carveone

28064212 wrote: »

? Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. If there is any possibility that a bill may be unconstitutional, it should definitely be referred to the Supreme court. Otherwise it will just be challenged in the courts once it comes into law

Neither am I

I think I'm uncertain about the President doing it. Or a President that feels that they should chuck everything at the Supreme Court.

Maybe I should go off and think some more about this... :rolleyes:

28064212

carveone wrote: »

I think I'm uncertain about the President doing it.

Well, it's very specifically one of the principal roles of the Presidential office.

carveone wrote: »

Or a President that feels that they should chuck everything at the Supreme Court.

Technically, I think the Dáil could get around this by using Article 24 to bypass the President. It would get messy though. Also, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court only has 60 days to return a judgement on a referred Bill, so it wouldn't be held up indefinitely

tfitzgerald

I hope she does pull out and takes that little blue book with her

pubview

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I hope she does pull out

Is that allowed under the Rhythm Method ?

joseph brand

Who is she threatening?

pubview

Everyone. If we don't stop asking naughty questions, she'll SING !!!

tfitzgerald

pubview wrote: »

Is that allowed under the Rhythm Method ?

::):):):)

Corsendonk

If she did pull out who would get her 5%?

thebman

Corsendonk wrote: »

If she did pull out who would get her 5%?

Gay Mitchell, he has similar wacky conservative Christian views to her.

HellFireClub

I was listening to Dana this morning being interviewed by Pat Kenny on RTE1 and she genuinely reminded me of Bishop Jordan out of that episode of Fr. Ted... Bishop Jordan was the bishop who was obsessed with the, "right wing bias of the media"...

crucamim

hotmail.com wrote: »

There's 3 things about this revelation today:

1. She's been caught out to be a liar, because she never revealed she was an American citizen.

2. She can no longer talk about "broken families" when it appears that her own family aren't getting along and even went to court. Most families have problems, but very few end up in court. So he's a hyporcrit.

3. She's been exposed as greedy - She went to court over song loyalties. She claims that she never sang in America for the money.

So she's been caught out quite dramatically and she knows it. She's blaming the media now everything, a clever tactic that will play well with Catholic die-hards that believe the media is anti-Catholic.

The Eire media is anti-Catholic. I have no quarrel with the remainder of your post. Indeed, I could add quite a lot to it.

crucamim

hotmail.com wrote: »

I think Dana is very dangerous.

to Dana.

MadsL

pubview wrote: »

No harm to wee Dana but I wish she, McGuinness, Norris and the rest would stop treating the electorate like fools by spinning a load of fairytales :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBRUe2_Zu8

Thats a twee little song about adultery :eek: Some shexy shapes too Dana!!

I know you gotta hurry home and face your wife
I would never never wanna hurt her (never, baby)
She would never ever ever understand
You belong to me for just one night
As we slept the night away


If she had been born in America, Dana would be this bat**** crazy Republican presidential hopeful hopeless candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bvreW08X0

cobwebs

The truth of the matter is that Dana will not make President of Ireland. However I do not agree with her being attacked over her faith. Being a Catholic is nothing to be ashamed of. The Queen is head of the church of England and I never hear her criticised for that. Why are we so afraid to question McGuinness on his murdering past.

28064212

cobwebs wrote: »

The truth of the matter is that Dana will not make President of Ireland. However I do not agree with her being attacked over her faith. Being a Catholic is nothing to be ashamed of. The Queen is head of the church of England and I never hear her criticised for that. Why are we so afraid to question McGuinness on his murdering past.

Newsflash: Martin McGuinness is also Catholic. As is Gay Mitchell. I'd guess that Mary Davis and Sean Gallagher are too, possibly even Michael D. And Norris is a Christian. If Dana's being attacked solely for her faith, I'm pretty sure it would apply to the rest of them.

Of course, her faith has absolutely nothing to do with why she's nowhere near being elected

thebman

crucamim wrote: »

The Eire media is anti-Catholic. I have no quarrel with the remainder of your post. Indeed, I could add quite a lot to it.

Hard to argue with that argument since it doesn't exist :P

How is the media anti-Catholic?

misterdeeds

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ah no, she is just refusing to discuss it now

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1010/breaking19.html

It has to be an American thing so

Venom

thebman wrote: »

How is the media anti-Catholic?

Because the media is now asking Dana questions she would rather not see the light of day

Venom

misterdeeds wrote: »

It has to be an American thing so

She's pleading the 5th

ebbsy

Will she get her expenses back ???????

View

Venom wrote: »

She's pleading the 5th

Okay, but since she is up on Bunreacht na hEireann, she'll know of course that this is the 5th amendment to it.

cobwebs

28064212 wrote: »

Newsflash: Martin McGuinness is also Catholic. As is Gay Mitchell. I'd guess that Mary Davis and Sean Gallagher are too, possibly even Michael D. And Norris is a Christian. If Dana's being attacked solely for her faith, I'm pretty sure it would apply to the rest of them.

Of course, her faith has absolutely nothing to do with why she's nowhere near being elected

Then why is it that most questions put to Dana is in relation to her views on same sex marraige and abortion etc. Why are the same questions not put to the other 'Christians'.

nesf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, then it is. Why is it a problem?

The problem is this: the court might not find every eventual circumstance with which to test the bill and a few years down the line a situation might develop where the bill clearly goes against the constitution but because the Supreme Court already ruled that it was constitutional it cannot be challenged. The mistake is to assume that the Supreme Court today can predict all future uses and applications of the bill over the next 20/30/50 years.

Zubeneschamali

nesf wrote: »

The problem is this: the court might not find every eventual circumstance with which to test the bill and a few years down the line a situation might develop where the bill clearly goes against the constitution but because the Supreme Court already ruled that it was constitutional it cannot be challenged. The mistake is to assume that the Supreme Court today can predict all future uses and applications of the bill over the next 20/30/50 years.

So instead, we should keep a bill on the lawbooks for 50 years, keep enforcing it, convicting people in the courts and jailing them based on it, until someone with the resources and proper advice to challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court gets convicted and has standing to appeal?

I don't think so.

If, in 50 years, we decide some law or other is objectionable, the legislators we pay to sit on their holes up in Dáil Eireann can feckin well change the law. In 50 years time. In the meantime, I'd like to be confident that any dodgy-looking law is Constitutional.

HellFireClub

In fairness, it's a very legitimate question to put to someone running for the presidency, (as Pat Kenny tried to do yesterday), "what would you do if you had to sign into law, a piece of legislation that fundamentally conflicted with your well known conservative views as a practicing Catholic?"...

I absolutely reject the response that was given yesterday, which was along the lines of, "please stop attacking me because I am a Catholic"... That's not an acceptable response I think, her views on things as simple as the availability of contraception, as a voter, before we even get onto more current matters such as gay marriage and abortion (things I do not support for the avoidance of doubt), I need to know exactly where she stands on all of these issues, because if we were to be guided by her stated religious views, we would be back in the 1950's and having to get a prescription from the GP and produce a marriage certificate in order to buy a box of condoms.

I think if she had any sense she would not have put herself forward for election as president because the truth of the matter is that her well known Catholic opinions are completely incompatible and at variance with the duties that an Irish president in 2011 might have to perform, in relation to the signing into law of legislation that will often and does often, completely contradict the teachings of the Catholic church that she is a practicing member of.

nesf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So instead, we should keep a bill on the lawbooks for 50 years, keep enforcing it, convicting people in the courts and jailing them based on it, until someone with the resources and proper advice to challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court gets convicted and has standing to appeal?

I don't think so.

If, in 50 years, we decide some law or other is objectionable, the legislators we pay to sit on their holes up in Dáil Eireann can feckin well change the law. In 50 years time. In the meantime, I'd like to be confident that any dodgy-looking law is Constitutional.

Sure if there's a doubt that a law is constitutional it should be challenged by the President but what we're talking about here is a President referring a bill to the Supreme Court because they don't like it rather than there being constitutional grounds to challenge it (i.e. what Dana is going on about doing). But what I said is a very good case for not challenging bills unless necessary. Leaving it up to the whims of a sitting Government is not a great way of dealing with Acts.

HellFireClub

nesf wrote: »

Sure if there's a doubt that a law is constitutional it should be challenged by the President but what we're talking about here is a President referring a bill to the Supreme Court because they don't like it rather than there being constitutional grounds to challenge it (i.e. what Dana is going on about doing). But what I said is a very good case for not challenging bills unless necessary. Leaving it up to the whims of a sitting Government is not a great way of dealing with Acts.

What I could see Dana doing with a bill that she didn't like, would be going a John Gormley on it and just sitting on it, not signing it into law and not referring it anywhere, just using her office to frustrate what she refers to as "liberalism", and then using some part of the constitution to account for her doing this.

Make no mistake about it, the views held by the more entrenched body of Catholics these days are seriously perverse, if you read any of the Catholic print media (Alive or the Irish Catholic), it is clear that they believe there is an agenda out there to distroy them and that this campaign is in fact personally directed by Satan. They even have this all explained or accounted for in terms of biblical prophecies, book of revelations, Satan has infiltrated the church, etc. The "anti church bias", they also believe is part of a wider satanically inspired campaign to distroy the church.

28064212

HellFireClub wrote: »

I think if she had any sense she would not have put herself forward for election as president because the truth of the matter is that her well known Catholic opinions are completely incompatible and at variance with the duties that an Irish president in 2011 might have to perform, in relation to the signing into law of legislation that will often and does often, completely contradict the teachings of the Catholic church that she is a practicing member of.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. She can believe in the Great Lord Xenu, for all her personal belief would actually matter if she was elected. The Irish President doesn't have a veto. The very best she could do is delay it for a maximum of 60 days.

Which makes Dana's question-dodging even more absurd. I can't believe no-one on her team has given her a copy of Article 26 and told her "study that for 5 minutes"

nesf wrote: »

Sure if there's a doubt that a law is constitutional it should be challenged by the President but what we're talking about here is a President referring a bill to the Supreme Court because they don't like it rather than there being constitutional grounds to challenge it (i.e. what Dana is going on about doing). But what I said is a very good case for not challenging bills unless necessary. Leaving it up to the whims of a sitting Government is not a great way of dealing with Acts.

Unfortunately, our constitution does give a president the right to refer it for no reason. Of course, it's a good way for a president to piss off the courts, the Council of State, the Dáil, and the people, and could even result in the Dáil using a loophole to go around such a president (Article 24). It's unlikely any president would actually do this

28064212

HellFireClub wrote: »

What I could see Dana doing with a bill that she didn't like, would be going a John Gormley on it and just sitting on it, not signing it into law and not referring it anywhere, just using her office to frustrate what she refers to as "liberalism", and then using some part of the constitution to account for her doing this.

She can't. She has 7 days to either sign it or refer it. If it's referred, it will come back to her in less than 60 days, when she must sign it. If she doesn't, one of the houses of the Oireachtas will impeach her. This needs two-thirds of the members of the house proposing the impeachment, and two-thirds of the members of the other house to investigate and sustain it. If she attempted something so blatantly unconstitutional, she would be removed immediately.

The position of president really has very little power. Also, I'd be skeptical of Dana actually referring something she disagrees with to the Supreme Court. What if it's found to be constitutional? Then no-one can ever challenge it again. I'd say she'd be more likely to sign it, then come out in full support of a case to challenge it.

OTOH, she doesn't appear to have read Article 26, so you never know what she could do. Thank God (pun intended) she has no chance of being elected

cobwebs

I am seeing some very frightening comments on the Dana interview. Are some of the commentators really suggesting that an individual should abandon their beliefs because they are standing for election as President of Ireland? So that means only those fully committed to same sex marriaiges, abortion etc., should stand for election. What a load of rubbish. If per chance Dana was elected (I see no hope of that), her beliefs would be irrelevant when it came to signing legislation, whether it be abortion, same sex marriage or the closing down of the Catholic Church.

FetchTheGin

cobwebs wrote: »

I am seeing some very frightening comments on the Dana interview. Are some of the commentators really suggesting that an individual should abandon their beliefs because they are standing for election as President of Ireland? So that means only those fully committed to same sex marriaiges, abortion etc., should stand for election. What a load of rubbish. If per chance Dana was elected (I see no hope of that), her beliefs would be irrelevant when it came to signing legislation, whether it be abortion, same sex marriage or the closing down of the Catholic Church.

How about believing in giving people the freedom to make their own decisions, without some draconian religion dictating the law of the land?

If she wants people to respect her beliefs then she should respect theirs.