another well paid job...

Hoffmans

best man for the job? ,ok but imo this reminds me of the antics during the ff era....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kenny-appoints-former-running-mate-as-a-judge-2923082.html

biko

TAOISEACH Enda Kenny last night appointed his former four-time running mate, local party strategist and member of the Fine Gael board of directors as a District Court judge.

Former Fine Gael senator Patrick Durcan is the third judge to be appointed in the past month with political and personal links to the coalition.

Isn't this the very definition of cronyism?

seamus

There does need to be a bit of objectiveness on this kind of thing. When you're dealing with politicians and businesspeople in their 50's and 60's, you can probably draw big connecting lines between them all. Take any two people at this level, go back far enough into their past and you can create a series of links and meetings to make it appear like they're best mates.

It's only natural that this occurs in a country as small as Ireland and especially when you're picking from the small pool of people who are qualified to sit as district court judges.

I'm not saying that this isn't a cronyist appointment, but I guarantee you if you looked at the full pool of eligible candidates for the job, you would find it difficult to locate one who doesn't have "political and personal links to the coalition".

ei.sdraob

So much for the whole referendum and politicians not interfering with the judges...

MidlandsM

You'd be hard pressed to find any potential candidates for these role that don't have political and personal links to any side, thats the reality in this small little state of ours.

But the media love to sex it up , like its big news...........old news more like, same old, same old......

Fr Tod Umptious

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So much for the whole referendum and politicians not interfering with the judges...

what referendum was that ?

But 'seamus' does make a good point, we are a tiny nation and the pool of qualified people is small.

I can image that there were and will be other judges appointed who are not connected politically, or are connected to a lesser extend, but that does not make for good headlines does it.

hatrickpatrick

Are you listening, el.sdraob?
This is precisely what is meant by the expression "The 1%".

Surveyor11

All judicial appointmets AFAIK here are political. Jobs for the boys and ocassionally, girls). They tried to reform this in 1994 AFAIK, 17 years later - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Surveyor11

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

we are a tiny nation and the pool of qualified people is small.

It's a tightly controlled profession, by the elite and (largely) for the elite. And for judges it's pools within pools - relatively few lawyers, and within that relatively well connected ones. Most judges are barristers, although they let in the one or two solicitors.So the pool is tiny.

johnnyskeleton

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

we are a tiny nation and the pool of qualified people is small.

It's a tightly controlled profession, by the elite and (largely) for the elite. And for judges it's pools within pools - relatively few lawyers, and within that relatively well connected ones. Most judges are barristers, although they let in the one or two solicitors.So the pool is tiny.

You really have a deep insight into this closeted world, showing us all what's really going on, how they're secretly controlling the pofession and how most judges in the district court are barristers with the occasional solicitor thrown in for good measure. I never knew that was the case.

Just one thing, seeing as how you have the inside track, what does it mean that of the three recent appointments, all three were solicitors (one of them was called to the bar this year, does that make her a barrister?). Perhaps the government are bringing a new pro solicitor slant to things?what is your view on this dramatic change in the appointment of district court judges?

Most importantly, does that mean the new government is shaking up the elite?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1102/1224306912027.html

anymore

seamus wrote: »

There does need to be a bit of objectiveness on this kind of thing. When you're dealing with politicians and businesspeople in their 50's and 60's, you can probably draw big connecting lines between them all. Take any two people at this level, go back far enough into their past and you can create a series of links and meetings to make it appear like they're best mates.

It's only natural that this occurs in a country as small as Ireland and especially when you're picking from the small pool of people who are qualified to sit as district court judges.

I'm not saying that this isn't a cronyist appointment, but I guarantee you if you looked at the full pool of eligible candidates for the job, you would find it difficult to locate one who doesn't have "political and personal links to the coalition".

Well I didnt get much thanks for efforts to point out how politically connected many of the Judiciary are in the threads on the Judicial referendum ! Instead we were expected to believe that the Judiciary are some unique body of people disconnected from the rest of the world !

anymore

seamus wrote: »

There does need to be a bit of objectiveness on this kind of thing. When you're dealing with politicians and businesspeople in their 50's and 60's, you can probably draw big connecting lines between them all. Take any two people at this level, go back far enough into their past and you can create a series of links and meetings to make it appear like they're best mates.

It's only natural that this occurs in a country as small as Ireland and especially when you're picking from the small pool of people who are qualified to sit as district court judges.

I'm not saying that this isn't a cronyist appointment, but I guarantee you if you looked at the full pool of eligible candidates for the job, you would find it difficult to locate one who doesn't have "political and personal links to the coalition".

How far back do you have to go to find a link to a ' four times running mate' ?
Do I detect the sound of a virtual orchestra of banging and slamming doors here ?

seamus

anymore wrote: »

How far back do you have to go to find a link to a ' four times running mate' ?

Quoted twice, awesome.
To answer your question: I don't know.

But I also wouldn't jump to the conclusion that running mates in an election are best buddies. Colleagues, friendly with eachother probably, but I have no reason to assume that they play golf together and spend christmas in each other's houses. Let's say for example that in 30 years time I get appointed to a political office by someone that I'm working with at the moment. We've been working together side-by-side, for five years, sitting less than ten feet from eachother. Sure we have to be great mates, it's a cronyist appointment, right? Eh, no.

To quote myself, "I'm not saying that this isn't a cronyist appointment". I'm not defending the appointment at all, simply making the point that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone qualified for these positions without a long list of links to all of the major political parties, as well as most of the major businesspeople in this country.

It's the same everywhere on the planet.

anymore

seamus wrote: »

Quoted twice, awesome.
To answer your question: I don't know.

But I also wouldn't jump to the conclusion that running mates in an election are best buddies. Colleagues, friendly with eachother probably, but I have no reason to assume that they play golf together and spend christmas in each other's houses. Let's say for example that in 30 years time I get appointed to a political office by someone that I'm working with at the moment. We've been working together side-by-side, for five years, sitting less than ten feet from eachother. Sure we have to be great mates, it's a cronyist appointment, right? Eh, no.

To quote myself, "I'm not saying that this isn't a cronyist appointment". I'm not defending the appointment at all, simply making the point that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone qualified for these positions without a long list of links to all of the major political parties, as well as most of the major businesspeople in this country.

It's the same everywhere on the planet.

Not jump to conclusions ! But isnt that the very thing that most of the legal people were doing on the Pay referendum - creating an atmosphere of fear over some dubious future plot to intimidate judges. I must say the change of tone is most remarkable ! Really unbeleivable - I assume it is back to normal service ?

seamus

anymore wrote: »

Not jump to conclusions ! But isnt that the very thing that most of the legal people were doing on the Pay referendum - creating an atmosphere of fear over some dubious future plot to intimidate judges. I must say the change of tone is most remarkable ! Really unbeleivable - I assume it is back to normal service ?

There's a huge difference between a political appointee and the use of pay as a means of leverage. Obviously there is.

That is, there are a number of things in my job that I wouldn't do if I was asked to, because they're illegal or immoral. But if my boss threatened to dock my pay, I probably would.

Just because someone who has been appointed knows or is even friendly with a member of the government, that doesn't mean they're a government puppet. Once appointed, they can defy the government without fear.
Being able to amend pay on the other hand, gives the government direct access to pull on their strings.

anymore

seamus wrote: »

There's a huge difference between a political appointee and the use of pay as a means of leverage. Obviously there is.

That is, there are a number of things in my job that I wouldn't do if I was asked to, because they're illegal or immoral. But if my boss threatened to dock my pay, I probably would.

Just because someone who has been appointed knows or is even friendly with a member of the government, that doesn't mean they're a government puppet. Once appointed, they can defy the government without fear.
Being able to amend pay on the other hand, gives the government direct access to pull on their strings.

I wont comment on the section in bold !
The most effective way to influence future judicial attiudes is over a period to appoint people who share your own political and economic views, etc,. We see that with US Supreme Court appointments. It is not to use the threat of salary cuts, as we all know.

seamus

anymore wrote: »

The most effective way to influence future judicial attiudes is over a period to appoint people who share your own political and economic views, etc,.

I'm not in disagreement here.

Arguably there is nothing wrong with this, as it implies a trickle-down effect. The population elect those who most closely align with their overall views, who in turn make judicial appointments who align closely to those views. It means that the law may be interpeted with a particular slant, but it's a slant most amenable to society.

The judiciary obviously should operate without biase, but that's an impossibility, there will always be a biase. It's a human system, so it can't be perfect.

However, that doesn't mean that government and judiciary are linked or in cahoots, but they are aligned. The issue with pay is that individual decisions can be directly influenced. The person who makes the law then has the power to also apply it. Which is obviously a huge problem.

jimmycrackcorm

biko wrote: »

Isn't this the very definition of cronyism?

The other side of the coin may well be that he knows the guy so much as to determine whether or not he is suitable for the job. However we really should have an independent commission for these purposes.

AnneBQ

Just because we're small and drawing from an even smaller pool should'nt stop us having an appointment process thats transparant and fair, not sure how it get it but it should'nt be impossible.

anymore

seamus wrote: »

I'm not in disagreement here.

Arguably there is nothing wrong with this, as it implies a trickle-down effect. The population elect those who most closely align with their overall views, who in turn make judicial appointments who align closely to those views. It means that the law may be interpeted with a particular slant, but it's a slant most amenable to society.

The judiciary obviously should operate without biase, but that's an impossibility, there will always be a biase. It's a human system, so it can't be perfect.

However, that doesn't mean that government and judiciary are linked or in cahoots, but they are aligned. The issue with pay is that individual decisions can be directly influenced. The person who makes the law then has the power to also apply it. Which is obviously a huge problem.

Well we agree with the end result if not the language used to describe the process. We end up with aligned forces which can send little old ladies to prison for being Stubborn about protecting thier property and we give massive financial rewards to those whose jobs it was to oversee our financial institutions which have gone bankrupt and we even employ developers who have helped to destroy the economy ! Perfect alignment for the elite, catastrophe for many of the non-aligned.
Any one for port ?

seamus

You're very scattered on what exactly what it is that you have a problem with. Financial rewards to bankers is outside the remit of the judiciary.
There's no reason why someone shouldn't be jailed for breaking the law, be they a stubborn "little old lady" running a tree-farming business, or a big banker who has been investigated by the Gardai and found guilty of wrongdoing in court.

From what I can tell, you're arguing that the judiciary should be biased, but only as long as they're biased in the way that you want. Or that they should be perfectly unbiased, which is of course an absolute impossibility.

I don't deny the manner is which judges are appointed could be improved, but at the end of the day at some point somebody will be hand picked to run a body, or a committee or whatever, and biase will always creep in. Your only other option is to appoint people based on time served, but that leads to incompetence. And I'll take biase over incompetence any day.