Amendment court challenge

Daith

SpaceTime wrote: »

When was this appeal lodged?

Given that the High Court and Court of Appeal are hearing it this doesn't seem to be an issue.

It's a pity the Court of Appeal can't hurry up with appeals on a referendum

ixoy

Daith wrote: »

It's a pity the Court of Appeal can't hurry up with appeals on a referendum

This. It should be fast tracked due to how its affecting a referendum for the country. It's of a higher priority than a case of one person.

I thought the Supreme Court can choose to ignore it.

SpaceTime

ixoy wrote: »

This. It should be fast tracked due to how its affecting a referendum for the country. It's of a higher priority than a case of one person.

I thought the Supreme Court can choose to ignore it.

I don't think leaving the result of a referendum hanging for a long time is a particularly good idea.

Bear in mind we had a referendum that granted an extension of voting rights in the Seanad to other universities which has *never* been implemented or used. It had nothing to do with a court challenge, just continuously put on the back burner and something that would risk a challenge to the status quo in the cozy Government Seanad so it's never happened.

Voted for in 1979 with 92.40% in favour and was never implemented : http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1979/en/act/cam/0007/print.html

Just shows how democratic will can be completely ignored by the cozy cartel in the Oireachtas when it suits them.

This latest appeal should be dealt with as a matter of urgency, as a special sitting if necessary.

Daith

ixoy wrote: »

This. It should be fast tracked due to how its affecting a referendum for the country. It's of a higher priority than a case of one person.

Exactly. I don't know if there's a minimum number of days needed but appealing a referendum result should take some priority

ixoy wrote: »

I thought the Supreme Court can choose to ignore it.

They can but they will bring the challenge to the Supreme Court anyway.

L1011

SpaceTime wrote: »

Could a well funded organisation continue to lodge appeals until 2017 possibly pushing this into the next Government's term of office for example ?

The litigant in this case claims to be a self-funded lay litigant.

feardeas

SpaceTime wrote: »

What's to stop another 50 appeals from well funded individuals who think the ballot papers were in the wrong font or there was a funny smell in the voting booth ?

Does this process not have the potential to create unreasonable and disproportionate delays to the outcome of a vote?

It's starting to look more like filibustering than due process.

Nothing to stop others doing the same bar a time limit which i think has been exceeded. The No campaign were a lot of things but the ones leading it were not stupid. They can not really be seen to be involved in this kind of thing because it is beyond daft. The fact that money was spent on posters was used by one of the men. Laughable given that Mothers and Fathers matter festooned the entire country with the bloody things.

The President of the High Court all but laughed them out the door. There is an appeal and there may be another one. The Supreme Court ruling in the appeal of the Childrens' referendum has set the bar, legitimately, so high as to be unattainable. This farce will not succeed. There are over 1.2 million reasons for that.

It may be a little bit more drawn out but like Collins supposedly said to the British about waiting 700 years they could have their 7 minutes. We have waited since time began they can have their few months.

who is this

L1011 wrote: »

The litigant in this case claims to be a self-funded lay litigant.

If he were really funded by the No campaign the argument wouldn't be so utterly ridiculous.

An appeal to the Supreme court is not a given (assuming as has been written here, they can indeed refuse it). One, because they could refuse it as the case is so utterly lacking in substance, and already had its two days in court. Two, he may not appeal further as (it seems) the other guy chose not to. The Court of Appeal will certainly award costs against him, so he may choose not to push it further. Maybe.

If the Supreme Court choose to literally hear any and every amendment challenge in future, it entirely defeats the purpose of introducing the Appellate court by in fact increasing the total time such cases require.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

I really hope there's no couple in the precarious situation of one having a terminal illness and waiting to marry. In general, and because of the possible delays.

SpaceTime

Aubrielle Tangy Rationalist wrote: »

I really hope there's no couple in the precarious situation of one having a terminal illness and waiting to marry. In general, and because of the possible delays.

Given the law of averages there quite probably is.

Annasopra

I think the absolute worst thing is the knock on effect that this is having in delaying the gender recognition bill.

Peregrinus

Daith wrote: »

Given that the High Court and Court of Appeal are hearing it this doesn't seem to be an issue.

It's a pity the Court of Appeal can't hurry up with appeals on a referendum

It can.

who is this

An expedited appeal of Lyons v Ireland is being heard today in Court of Appeal, but since no one has reported that Lyons is appealing the case, it could well be just an appeal against the costs order.

ixoy

Has there been any more on this? Thanks to this idiot's challenge the window for the government to pass legislation prior to the summer recess has passed.

Daith

ixoy wrote: »

Has there been any more on this? Thanks to this idiot's challenge the window for the government to pass legislation prior to the summer recess has passed.

Not being heard until 30th of July?

who is this

Yep. But I noticed yesterday (or day before) that that guy who appealed against the result of a Kerry County Council election bypassed the Court of Appeal and went straight from High Court to Supreme Court.

That the two appellants chose not to attempt to go straight to the Supreme Court (even though they can do so, and I imagine would have been supported by the State) gives the Supreme Court far more cause to refuse to hear a second appeal should they file one.

NuMarvel

who is this wrote: »

Yep. But I noticed yesterday (or day before) that that guy who appealed against the result of a Kerry County Council election bypassed the Court of Appeal and went straight from High Court to Supreme Court.

That the two appellants chose not to attempt to go straight to the Supreme Court (even though they can do so, and I imagine would have been supported by the State) gives the Supreme Court far more cause to refuse to hear a second appeal should they file one.

It's up to the Supreme Court to decide if they'll hear an appeal instead of the Court of Appeal. In the case of the Kerry elections, the Supreme Court judges were asked if they would hear an appeal, and they decided the case warranted it.

In the case of the marriage referendum, one of the guys went back to the High Court to appeal the decision, and he was directed to the Court of Appeal. If memory serves, it was only after the State told the other guy he could appeal the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal, and they only did that because the Court of Appeal judge asked them to. Both of them are lay litigants, so I don't think they're that clued in to the legal process.

Peregrinus

Yup. The Supreme Court can hear an appeal directly from the High Court if it "is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal to it". And they can only be satisfied about that if "the decision involves a matter of general public importance" or "the interests of justice" require a direct appeal.

But none of this is relevant unless whoever objects to the High Court judgment brings an appeal to the Supreme Court. If nobody appeals to the Supreme Court, the question of whether the Supreme Court can hear the appeal doesn't arise.

Daith

NuMarvel wrote: »

Both of them are lay litigants, so I don't think they're that clued in to the legal process.

They may be lay litigants but they're getting legal advice. They're essentially just like that woman who challenged the Children's Rights referendum.

NuMarvel

Daith wrote: »

They may be lay litigants but they're getting legal advice. They're essentially just like that woman who challenged the Children's Rights referendum.

Based on what I've seen, any legal advice these guys are getting is of the "the fella down in the pub said" variety.

who is this

Daith wrote: »

They may be lay litigants but they're getting legal advice. They're essentially just like that woman who challenged the Children's Rights referendum.

I'm open to correction but I'm 99% sure she had actual representation.

Daith

who is this wrote: »

I'm open to correction but I'm 99% sure she had actual representation.

Oh could be right. I'm just seeing her as patsy same with these guys but could be wrong.

who is this

In any case she was openly supported by the No campaign for her challenge.

Her argument was at least valid, even if on the balance of merits (that the booklet could have really deceived such a large proportion of the population into voting No) it couldn't realistically have succeeded.

You can't say the same for either of these two. Their High Court challenge wasn't even refused. Unless my understanding is flawed, they were refused permission to even bring a challenge because their case is so clearly lacking in merits.

If the No campaign are really supporting these two (I wouldn't put it past them, but I do really have my doubts), they should have arguments that have a chance (however small) of doing more than just wasting time and money.

Peregrinus

Financing these cases really would be throwing good money after bad, and most of the leaders in the 'No' campaign will see that very clearly. If they're getting any support at all from the 'No' campaign I expect it to be in the form of cheerleading, not cheques.

daithi84

They know they have no case, its a religious funded delaying mechanism thats all. Hopefully the courts will dismiss it. As evident from the plaintiff in the children's referendum case she was delighted that she got to delay the implementation of the referendum by 2 years.

I think someone referenced the US supreme court earlier, they have a federal system which is different to our system. They have an overarching federal constitution and then each state is run like mini countries inside the bigger collective state. The supreme court ruled that equal marriage was a constitutional right under the 14th amendment that entitles all american citizens to equal protection under the law, this therefore overruled any anti gay legislation in some states.

The court case here is a challenge to the validity to a referendum which was voted by the people, once a referendum is signed into law it cannot be challenged or removed without a further referendum, therefore they are trying to challenge the validity of the referendum process and stop it being signed into law. Once something is in the constitution it has to be accompanied by legislation enforcing those rights, the referendum changed the constitution so that a persons sex is not a barrier to marriage however there is legislation that says otherwise, once the referendum is put into law then the legislation will be changed to show the change in the constitution. In regards to the senead referendum way back when regarding different universities, any citizen was capable at any stage post referendum to challenge the government through the courts to enforce the government to change the legislation as it was contrary to the constitution, however nobody was too arsed.

SpaceTime

The issue with the Seanad one is that the wording allows the government to, if it so feels like it, enable it or not.

Unless you could convince the Supreme Court that there's an implied right, there is nothing to challenge. All it did was give the government options to legislate.

It's an absolute disgrace that no government since 1979 ever did though and it shows how they really don't care about Seanad reform.

I don't think the overwhelming majority in that referendum (by far the largest majority of any referendum) intended it to be parked for 35 years!

2. Provision may be made by law for the election, on a franchise and in the manner to be provided by law, by one or more of the following institutions, namely:
i. the universities mentioned in subsection 1 of this section,
ii. any other institutions of higher education in the State, of so many members of Seanad Éireann as may be fixed by law in substitution for an equal number of the members to be elected pursuant to paragraphs i and ii of the said subsection 1.

The marriage equity referendum gave a much more unambiguous right that would override any legislation to the contrary:

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

That gives an absolute right to marry regardless of the parties' sex. So, without a referendum to remove it, even if the government was very right wing, it can't remove or undermine that right.

who is this

daithi84 wrote: »

They know they have no case, its a religious funded delaying mechanism thats all.

Have you read any of the reports on it? Hard as it may be to believe, they clearly are so deluded that they do think they have a case.

daithi84

who is this wrote: »

Have you read any of the reports on it? Hard as it may be to believe, they clearly are so deluded that they do think they have a case.

All those religious loonies think they are legitimate. The case is really clutching at straws. The arguments were that the referendum went against the "Christain ethos" of the constitution. Not even a proper legal argument. This is not the Vatican. The constituion is changeable at the will of the people which is the whole purpose of a referendum. Also an argument was that it would affect the role of women in the home, an article in the constitution that is not in force! Serious lunatics.

though this is the funniest part for me:

"The judge also dismissed other arguments by Mr Lyons that those citizens who did not vote had in effect voted No and therefore the sovereign people had not approved this amendment."

I still want to know where all the No campaigners money came from!! Are SIPO to release this information??

LegacyUser

What's the current estimation for when this will all be cleared up i.e. it go through the entire process and is dismissed/ruled upon? I saw articles in the IT saying early 2016 but no real indicative timeframe what what i've heard or read.

manic mailman

What's the current estimation for when this will all be cleared up i.e. it go through the entire process and is dismissed/ruled upon? I saw articles in the IT saying early 2016 but no real indicative timeframe what what i've heard or read.

who is this

The Irish Times can't read.

Their 2016 estimation is based on legislation coming forward in September (assuming either the Court of Appeal challenge is not further appealed, or that the Supreme Court hears and dismisses the appeals by the return of the Dáil) and there being a 3-month waiting period for marriages.

This is inaccurate because Fitzgerald has made it clear the legislation will come into force almost concurrently with being passed. Pending notices to enter into civil partnership can be "converted" directly into a marriage notice (the heads of the bill state this very explicitly).

The process would be

1. (say September) The bill is passed
2. The bill is given legal effect by Fitzgerald (this could be any amount of time but she has strongly implied it will be extremely prompt, so assume September as well)
3. (September) Couples give notice for marriage for 3-month period.
4. (September/October) Couples get married from existing CP notices
5. (December/January) Couples get married from actual notices of intention to marry