The future of judicial Independence

realitykeeper

The Polish government has recently voted through legislation to enable the government to get rid of Communist era judges and replace them which good judges instead. Given the number of left wing judges in this country, do we the people need a government that will take similar action?

After all, awards given to chancers are not what taxes are supposed to be used for. Even in the case of genuine plaintiffs against the state, taxpayers are always blameless of that person`s grievance yet still they are expected to pay the cost of awards handed out by judges. Such matters should be left to the charitable sector.

Many taxpayers rightly take the view that the state should play little or no role in the lives of 99.999% of the people. As such, responsiblity of the state for hard luck cases really ought to end. Am I not correct?

hullaballoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

The Polish government has recently voted through legislation to enable the government to get rid of Communist era judges and replace them which good judges instead.

Left wing = communist; right wing = good. Ok.

Given the number of left wing judges in this country, do we the people need a government that will take similar action?

Get rid of our communist-era judges?

After all, awards given to chancers are not what taxes are supposed to be used for.

Taxes are supposed to be used to create a safe place for people to live, without risk of being injured because of the State's negligence. If the State chooses, as it so often does, to ignore its obligations in that regard, then its citizens are entitled to recover their losses by way of suit against the State or the emanation of it that caused their losses.

Even in the case of genuine plaintiffs against the state, taxpayers are always blameless of that person`s grievance yet still they are expected to pay the cost of awards handed out by judges.

Taxpayers do not enjoy the privilege of ex post facto decisions on what is done with their tax payments. It has nothing to do with the taxpayer if the State elects to risk exchequer monies by failing to adequately or at all address unsafe conditions and create dangerous traps for its citizens.

Such matters should be left to the charitable sector.

The charitable sector that's currently embroiled in massive corruption controversy? The charitable sector that's unregulated, has no oversight and makes millionaires of its managers, while engaging in what could be described as blackmail of the general public?

That charitable sector?

No thanks. I'd rather have trained and highly experienced legal professionals decide on the law and administer justice. Really, despite the yammerings and witterings of populist media outlets and Big Dave down the pub, I think that's what most people would really want if they really thought about it.

Many taxpayers rightly take the view that the state should play little or no role in the lives of 99.999% of the people.

The State is directly involved in 100% of its citizens on myriad issues and affairs. Because that's what the State is supposed to do. Thankfully, we live under a largely benevolent regime but we, the people, appear to be our own worst enemies when it comes to affecting any meaningful change. We've effective had one political party in power (well, one party and then the splitters) since the State's foundation. That seems to me to indicate most people are largely happy with the status quo.

But go ahead and start your own political party or lobby group to fundamentally change how the justice system works and if you're right, then I'm sure you'll be Taoiseach in no time at all.

As such, responsiblity of the state for hard luck cases really ought to end.

If the State wants to end its citizens bouts of "hard luck," it can stop injuring or otherwise wronging its citizens.

Am I not correct?

I don't personally believe so, no.

Samuel T. Cogley

Ironic username is ironic.

A google of the term 'separation of powers' might be useful.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

The Polish government has recently voted through legislation to enable the government to get rid of Communist era judges and replace them which good judges instead.

The "communist era" in Poland ended 28 years ago and the number of Polish judges who have been serving for more than 28 years is, I cautiously suggest, unlikely to be very high. There are few, if any, "communist era judges" in Poland and, even if they are replaced, there is no reason to suppose that their replacements will be "good judges"; they could be terrible judges.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Given the number of left wing judges in this country, do we the people need a government that will take similar action?

Unless you're using the term "left wing" in some very unusual sense, the number of left wing judges in Ireland is small; about as small as the number of communist-era judges in Poland, I'd say.

ohnonotgmail

Even the poles dont want this to happen. The polish president has vetoed the change.

It's funny though that the title of the thread is judicial independence when the OP is advocating replacing judges en masse with those aligned to the present government. quite the opposite of judicial independence i would have thought.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Even the poles dont want this to happen. The polish president has vetoed the change.

It's funny though that the title of the thread is judicial independence when the OP is advocating replacing judges en masse with those aligned to the present government. quite the opposite of judicial independence i would have thought.

I think the point that realitykeeper is trying to make is that he does not favour judicial independence. Judges should be expected to make decisions that reflect a particular political orthodoxy which he endorses and, if they don't do that, they should be liable to removal.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the point that realitykeeper is trying to make is that he does not favour judicial independence. Judges should be expected to make decisions that reflect a particular political orthodoxy which he endorses and, if they don't do that, they should be liable to removal.

i know i was just pointing out the irony of the title.

Pat Mustard

realitykeeper wrote: »

The Polish government has recently voted through legislation to enable the government to get rid of Communist era judges and replace them which good judges instead. Given the number of left wing judges in this country, do we the people need a government that will take similar action?

After all, awards given to chancers are not what taxes are supposed to be used for. Even in the case of genuine plaintiffs against the state, taxpayers are always blameless of that person`s grievance yet still they are expected to pay the cost of awards handed out by judges. Such matters should be left to the charitable sector.

Absolutely, I was up in court the other day and a man was suing another man for assault. I couldn't believe it when instead of making an award against the attacker, a communist era judge made an award against the taxpayers and the working men in the street.

Now all the chancers and layabouts are staying in five star hotels smoking Cuban cigars while the common man and the taxpayer pay for it all with the sweat of their brows.

Bloody communists.

It's a disgrace.

realitykeeper

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Even the poles dont want this to happen. The polish president has vetoed the change.

It's funny though that the title of the thread is judicial independence when the OP is advocating replacing judges en masse with those aligned to the present government. quite the opposite of judicial independence i would have thought.

The present government is ultra left wing as far as I am concerned. Just because the alternatives are even more left wing does not in any way negate this fact.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

The "communist era" in Poland ended 28 years ago and the number of Polish judges who have been serving for more than 28 years is, I cautiously suggest, unlikely to be very high. There are few, if any, "communist era judges" in Poland and, even if they are replaced, there is no reason to suppose that their replacements will be "good judges"; they could be terrible judges.


Unless you're using the term "left wing" in some very unusual sense, the number of left wing judges in Ireland is small; about as small as the number of communist-era judges in Poland, I'd say.

The reason the Polish government want to bring in the legislation is primarily because of the problem Communist era judges. So they are still in situ. Don`t you follow the news?

endacl

realitykeeper wrote: »

The present government is ultra left wing as far as I am concerned. Just because the alternatives are even more left wing does not in any way negate this fact.

Do you wake up every morning with the mission to spend each new day in pursuit of new levels of daft?

Mod
Ah now, posters are entitled to express a POV; altho' I would prefer if this one move onto some legal discussion

Grolschevik

realitykeeper wrote:

The present government is ultra left wing as far as I am concerned. Just because the alternatives are even more left wing does not in any way negate this fact.

That is delusional.

realitykeeper

hullaballoo wrote: »

Left wing = communist; right wing = good. Ok.

Common sense.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Taxes are supposed to be used to create a safe place for people to live, without risk of being injured ...

Nonsense, with respect. Woodlands and mountains are in the state, should all such amenities be paved over and riddled with handrails? Accidents happen and the intelligent way to avoid them is to anticipate them and then exercise care whether you are on a city street or in the back of beyonds. There is not enough money on earth to accident proof Ireland.

hullaballoo wrote: »

The charitable sector that's currently embroiled in massive corruption controversy?

Except you can be your own charity and give directly.

hullaballoo wrote: »

The State is directly involved in 100% of its citizens on myriad issues and affairs. Because that's what the State is supposed to do.

Wrong. The state should do as little as possible, apart of course from the task of downsizing itself.

Grolschevik

Ah, extreme libertarianism. Now it makes sense. Funny enough, I've only ever actually come across them in Ireland as anonymous posters on Boards.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

The present government is ultra left wing as far as I am concerned. Just because the alternatives are even more left wing does not in any way negate this fact.

So, let me get this straight: you want the "ultra left-wing government", and the alternative "even more left wing government" to have the power to fire and replace judges whose decisions they dislike?

endacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, let me get this straight: you want the "ultra left-wing government", and the alternative "even more left wing government" to have the power to fire and replace judges whose decisions they dislike?

Reality ≠ logical consistency?

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, let me get this straight: you want the "ultra left-wing government", and the alternative "even more left wing government" to have the power to fire and replace judges whose decisions they dislike?

No I do not want them to have power. There is however the potential for a small elite right wing government but for it to emerge, voters need to become more intelligent.

Extreme poverty around the world is the result of policies which are being pursued in Ireland today.

Pat Mustard

realitykeeper wrote: »

No I do not want them to have power. There is however the potential for a small elite right wing government but for it to emerge, voters need to become more intelligent.

Extreme poverty around the world is the result of policies which are being pursued in Ireland today.

Mod:

This is not the Politics forum. It is the Legal Discussion forum. There may be overlap between the forums but there is no legal point in the above statement. Do you have a legal point to make or not?