Referendum: Amendment 1 - Judges' Pay - Yes or No?

Tom Young

So, what are the arguments?

Tom Young

Dr Fiona DeLondras has outlined why she is concerned by the wording of Judges' Pay Referendum here: http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2011/10/17/judgespay2/

FreudianSlippers

I'll be voting 'no' on this. I'm concerned about the ambiguity of the wording as well as the larger implications it would have on the concept of separation of powers.

Grolschevik

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll be voting 'no' on this. I'm concerned about the ambiguity of the wording as well as the larger implications it would have on the concept of separation of powers.

Me too.

Jev/N

The only reason I would agree with this passing was if the government intended on expanding the number of judges. Maybe controversial but there is such a lack and backlog across the board but probably unrealistic due to the shutting down/amalgamation of courthouses around the country

Edit: And if the proposed amendment was drafted in a less ambiguous fashion

johnnyskeleton

Vote no for divilment.

On the one hand it goes too far as it effectively sets the constitutional protection of judicial pay (and thereby independence) at nought.

On the other it doesn't go far enough by having an independent system of selection, discipline and ultimately dismissing judges.

Why can't they distinguish between district and circuit judges (who are amenable to judicial review and so independence by way of pay and appointment is less important) and superior court judges who should be above politics and so must be protected? Afaik, all supreme court judges and most (if not all) high court judges took the voluntary cut, so any percieved issue of not taking cuts can be addressed by legislation rather than an effective removal of the protection.

Coming back to the divilment point, this government promised serious constitutional reform by means of electoral reforms, childrens rights and a review of the more outdated terms by way of a constitutional symposium. But these are all divisive issues and judges pay seems a pure cynical move by politicians to gain votes. So it would be interesting to know why this is being run instead of e.g abolishing the Seanad.

_JOE_

I will be voting no here (although accidentally clicked yes above).

As johnnyS noted, it sets the constitutional protection of judicial pay (and thereby independence) at nought, and is essentially a vote spinner.

Brother Psychosis

voting no.

while the judiciary have consistently upheld their side of the bargain, if you want to call it that, in relation to the separation of powers, this is a clear violation of that principle and is extremely worrying.

that said, with the crowd pleasing consequences, its probably going to pass

dats_right

VOTE NO and NO. Disgraceful stuff by the coalition Government. Both referendums are nothing more than an anti-democratic and sinister attempt by this Government to damage the fundamental principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary under the guise of populist sentiment.

I wouldn't trust a policitian to tie his/her shoe laces without tripping up (and I know a few, including many in this current coalition who really should know better), yet we are expected to trust them not to interfere with judicial independence once they have the powers to do so and hold inquiries into matters of public importance. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

blueythebear

I find a couple of things about these amendments quite sinister.

i) being held on the back of the Presidential Election so that there is a distinct lack of debate about the matter
ii)Coupling the reduction in Judge's pay amendment (very populist manouevre and almost guaranteed to pass) with the amendment in relation to Oireachteas enquiries in an effort to confuse people who think that they must vote yes or no to both as opposed to yes to one and no to the other. Or even to confuse the population into thinking that they are somehow linked when they are not.

I would vote "no" to this Judge's pay amendment even before I saw the wording as there has been no debate and very little informed discussion on it thus far.

Having seen it, I feel that it is too broad and allows the Executive too much oversight in relation to Judge's pay, thereby endangering the independence of the judiciary.

I'm not against reducing judge's pay at all. I'm in favour of it in the current climate but it must be done properly.

Also, reducing the pay of top positions in Semi State bodies (which involve greater salaries I believe) is not being pushed in this manner. I believe the excuse is that these individuals are protected by their contracts. So we're being told that evading contract law (protecting top semi State employees) in this case is more difficult or troublesome than holding a CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM to reduce Judges pay?

theTinker

Thanks for the information guys.

zynaps

blueythebear wrote: »

I find a couple of things about these amendments quite sinister.

i) being held on the back of the Presidential Election so that there is a distinct lack of debate about the matter
[...]
So we're being told that evading contract law (protecting top semi State employees) in this case is more difficult or troublesome than holding a CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM to reduce Judges pay?

100% agree, this does feel a bit sleazy.

jimgoose

Tom Young wrote: »

So, what are the arguments?

WE CAN REDUCE JUDGES PAY WITHOUT CHANGING OUR CONCTITUTION.

jimgoose

Tom Young wrote: »

So, what are the arguments?

WE CAN REDUCE JUDGES PAY WITHOUT CHANGING OUR CONSTITUTION .

Brother Psychosis

jimgoose wrote: »

WE CAN REDUCE JUDGES PAY WITHOUT CHANGING OUR CONSTITUTION .

Art. 35.5 - "The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office"

no, we can't

The Orb

No, it is contrary to clear separation of powers. It has been done in a way to appeal to the masses (f*ck the rich bleedin' lawyers) and is a terrible abuse of process.

peanuthead

Glad to see so many no votes here, but I have to tell you at my local polling station there were a lot of yes votes going in.

I would be seriously worried about how this would actually play out. I imagine it will pass as the amount of people I have heard going around saying "They're paid too much anyway" is unreal. As said above, this was marketed to us in a very clever way.