Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Options
1…212213215217218…247

Comments

  • Options
    #6422
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Christy42 wrote: »
    If you want to give money to Paul and I say I will pass it along I can hardly claim that I gave money to Paul. I only got the money on the condition that it was passed along.

    Depends if the collection is done on those terms. Aren't they usually simply done on the basis of, "give us money into general funds, we'll spend it as needed on our local church needs, and assorted 'good causes'?"


  • Options
    #6423
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Depends if the collection is done on those terms. Aren't they usually simply done on the basis of, "give us money into general funds, we'll spend it as needed on our local church needs, and assorted 'good causes'?"

    Like supporting Columbia etc ?




  • Options
    #6424
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,897 ✭✭✭Christy42


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Christy42 wrote: »
    If you want to give money to Paul and I say I will pass it along I can hardly claim that I gave money to Paul. I only got the money on the condition that it was passed along.

    Depends if the collection is done on those terms. Aren't they usually simply done on the basis of, "give us money into general funds, we'll spend it as needed on our local church needs, and assorted 'good causes'?"
    They frequently announce what an extra collection is for. I guess some of the initial collection could go to schools, I haven't exactly tracked the money but I figure if they are going to announce unusual stuff (generally for retired priests or something similar) they would like announce this


  • Options
    #6425
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,259 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Appeals court rules against Jordan. http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-referendum-challenge-dismissed-4203767-Aug2018/

    Still more yet to come. Can't wait to see if she'll pay the court costs. Probably not, if this were the US they could get her to pay up


  • Options
    #6426
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,171 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Appeals court rules against Jordan. http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-referendum-challenge-dismissed-4203767-Aug2018/

    Still more yet to come. Can't wait to see if she'll pay the court costs. Probably not, if this were the US they could get her to pay up

    Who is she though? she brought challenges before and lost them too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6427
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,324 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Grayson wrote: »
    Who is she though? she brought challenges before and lost them too.


    She is a nobody with no money. Hence she is the perfect stooge to take a challenge like this.


  • Options
    #6428
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Grayson wrote: »
    Who is she though? she brought challenges before and lost them too.

    The only reason her challenges took so long the last time was because she challenged the law about referendums once her initial challenge to the children's referendum failed.

    She doesn't have that in her arsenal this time, which is why she's reliant on these flimsy and incoherent grounds. If she appeals to the Supreme Court, then I'd wager they won't even hear her case given how weak her argument has been so far.


  • Options
    #6429
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,259 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The only reason her challenges took so long the last time was because she challenged the law about referendums once her initial challenge to the children's referendum failed.

    She doesn't have that in her arsenal this time, which is why she's reliant on these flimsy and incoherent grounds. If she appeals to the Supreme Court, then I'd wager they won't even hear her case given how weak her argument has been so far.

    Anyone know what kind of timeline this might take? I see in the article about delaying judgement till Friday (whatever that means, I suppose it's making it official that the appeal was rejected.) I agree the SC shouldn't hear this frivolous case, but is there a timeline? In the US, it might take months (if not longer) for the SC to get around to not granting certorari to a case, i.e., not listening to the case because it has no merits.

    I really don't want to see the amendment lingering around any longer than necessary, it needs to go and soon so the legislative work can happen.

    As for Joanna Jordan, rumor is, unsurprisingly, the evangelical anti-abortion industry in the US puts up the money.


  • Options
    #6430
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Anyone know what kind of timeline this might take? I see in the article about delaying judgement till Friday (whatever that means, I suppose it's making it official that the appeal was rejected.) I agree the SC shouldn't hear this frivolous case, but is there a timeline? In the US, it might take months (if not longer) for the SC to get around to not granting certorari to a case, i.e., not listening to the case because it has no merits.

    I really don't want to see the amendment lingering around any longer than necessary, it needs to go and soon so the legislative work can happen.

    As for Joanna Jordan, rumor is, unsurprisingly, the evangelical anti-abortion industry in the US puts up the money.

    The stay until Friday is to allow her a chance to lodge an appeal before the referendum result can be officially declared. I imagine the Supreme Court will be quick enough in making a decision, depending on the nature of her arguments. They reverted within a few weeks on the final challenge to the marriage equality referendum, so I'd say this would be the same unless she miraculously happens to produce a cogent argument.

    While her appeals are frustrating changes to the constitution, they're not making much difference to changes to the actual law. New laws still need to be debated by the Dáil and Seand, which don't return until 18 September anyway. She has, at best, delayed new laws by a few weeks, and in the meantime, civil servants can still work away on drafting the new legislation while her challenges are being heard and decided on.


  • Options
    #6431
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,395 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    She'll need a challenge on a point of law to go to the SC though, won't she? Hard to see how she'll manage that, especially as she tried challenging the referendum law before and got nowhere.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6432
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Igotadose wrote: »
    In the US, it might take months (if not longer) for the SC to get around to not granting certorari to a case, i.e., not listening to the case because it has no merits.

    But conversely, when the electoral clock is running, you can also get a full hearing in a matter of days. Witness Bush v. Gore.


  • Options
    #6433
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,159 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    But conversely, when the electoral clock is running, you can also get a full hearing in a matter of days. Witness Bush v. Gore.

    Ah, a dispute between two white males, and their political parties. That's urgent.
    In Roe v Wade, otoh, "Roe" had long since given birth before the judgment allowing her an abortion came through.


  • Options
    #6434
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Supreme Court dismissed her leave to appeal. The legislation can be enacted now


  • Options
    #6435
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Watch Mattie Ronan and Co frustrate its passage through the Oireachtas


  • Options
    #6436
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,395 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    IIRC you need ten objectors to delay a vote being called and if the No-side TDs in FF etc have any sense they'll stfu and abstain / not turn up and just let the legislation go through with as little fuss as possible, they've embarrassed themselves enough over this issue already and don't want the electorate to be reminded how out of touch with them they are.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #6437
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    IIRC you need ten objectors to delay a vote being called and if the No-side TDs in FF etc have any sense they'll stfu and abstain / not turn up and just let the legislation go through with as little fuss as possible, they've embarrassed themselves enough over this issue already and don't want the electorate to be reminded how out of touch with them they are.

    The bould Mattie is on the record as saying “I have no intention of obstructing this Bill but I have every intention of placing amendments” so presumably he won't be seeking to delay the vote.


  • Options
    #6438
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Placing spurious amendments is obstructing it, they never admit to filibustering and obstructing but thats what they do


  • Options
    #6439
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,869 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    IIRC you need ten objectors to delay a vote being called and if the No-side TDs in FF etc have any sense they'll stfu and abstain / not turn up and just let the legislation go through with as little fuss as possible, they've embarrassed themselves enough over this issue already and don't want the electorate to be reminded how out of touch with them they are.

    That's one hell of an "if".


  • Options
    #6440
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users Posts: 13,551 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    Speaking of anti-repeal idiots going on the record with big claims, did John Waters ever move to Spain in the end?


  • Options
    #6441
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    I was delighted to read that her case was dismissed but also that "...The court also said there was no reason why costs should not be awarded against Ms Jordan."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6442
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,259 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    If by some amazing luck she pays her court costs, Revenue should look hard at her taxes to see where the money comes from.


  • Options
    #6443
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    That's one hell of an "if".

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/many-anti-repeal-tds-now-set-to-back-abortion-legislation-1.3510570?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fmany-anti-repeal-tds-now-set-to-back-abortion-legislation-1.3510570

    According to this article, many TDs who were against repeal intend to vote for the legislation, or at worst abstain. Very few clearly saying they will vote against. I think as HD says there is a recognition that there is no political benefit to be obstructing this legislation. I reckon the only people standing against will be 'true believers' like Carol Nolan...


  • Options
    #6444
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Glad to hear that the appeals have all been dismissed. I think what happened is that the individuals who appealed (and the people behind them) expected the result to be much closer. Like many of us really. And had the appeals prepared and ready to go. And then ill-advisedly decided to press on, even when the result was quite emphatic. The appeals taken all would have made much more sense if the result had been much closer. But instead, they all looked foolish.


  • Options
    #6445
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,243 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Imagine having the gall to go to try and personally frustrate the clear will of the electorate (clearer than the will with which the 8th was introduced in 1983) as a whole?


  • Options
    #6446
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,259 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Imagine having the gall to go to try and personally frustrate the clear will of the electorate (clearer than the will with which the 8th was introduced in 1983) as a whole?

    The giant angry sky fairy told her to. Not the first time. Wait till the removing the 'woman's place in the home' referendum passes, she'll be back again.

    Or when the awful preamble goes. Yup, she'll be clicking them beads and getting some crap lawyers to gin up sure-to-fail appeals.

    At least, until Revenue gets after her and shuts down her funding. This'd be easy in the US, but here, who knows.


  • Options
    #6447
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,395 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    The appeals taken all would have made much more sense if the result had been much closer. But instead, they all looked foolish.

    The appeals were foolish anyway.

    So what if some people were on the register who shouldn't have been, and some were taken off it who shouldn't have been. This is inevitable in any vote and you can't prove which way these people voted (or would have voted) so no benefit can be shown to have occurred to one side or the other.

    The idea that members of the government cannot campaign in favour of an amendment is laughably stupid.

    The courts should apply an Isaac Wunder order to her to stop her wasting the courts' time with more ridiculous appeals in future. And yes I hope the revenue go after her and apply tax on the funding she's been getting.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #6448
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Deleted User wrote: »
    "homemaker" Joanna Jordan is going to bring a petition challenging the High Court ruling that the rest of the country can outvote her.

    Why is there no journalist in the country wants to profile this constant agitator, neither her nor Charles Byrne?

    Where do they get their money? Private citizens, homemakers and music teachers, for instance, rarely have high court cash just knocking around.

    Where is the Irish Times piece on the people suing the voters of Ireland at great expense?
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/just-because-people-voted-for-it-doesnt-make-it-right-man-who-attempted-legal-challenge-against-referendum-result-37289132.html
    Mr. Byrne sets out his own stall in this interview, although he doesn't say who, if anyone is funding him. Younger and more politically savvy than I was expecting. Also, not much overt God-bothering in the interview, although it's pretty clear where he's coming from...


  • Options
    #6449
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,259 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/just-because-people-voted-for-it-doesnt-make-it-right-man-who-attempted-legal-challenge-against-referendum-result-37289132.html
    Mr. Byrne sets out his own stall in this interview, although he doesn't say who, if anyone is funding him. Younger and more politically savvy than I was expecting. Also, not much overt God-bothering in the interview, although it's pretty clear where he's coming from...

    I won't get back the 3 minutes I just spent reading that article. Wasn't he the one whose entire real property was a piano? I do agree with one thing he said: fire all the bishops. I wouldn't rehire any, however, which I don't think is where he was going with it.

    As for anti-women's rights (aka right-to-life) getting stronger with legalized abortion, well, I don't wager but I wouldn't take any odds on that. Ireland's sent its message. The RCC's in retreat and falling apart worldwide, we're just another place it's tentacles have been shorn. More to come, too. Good riddance.


  • Options
    #6450
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,259 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Some muppet named John Bruton's already launched a whine-salvo against the proposed legislation. https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0908/992511-abortion-legislation-dail/

    (Yeah, former Taoiseach and all that. Former's the operative word. STFU. Conscientious objection: keep women oppressed.)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6451
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,395 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Bruton can go fcuk himself to be honest.

    We knew what the draft legislation said, and in that light we voted to repeal by two to one. That's TWO TO FCUKING ONE, JOHN.

    Just shut up and go back to counting your pension.

    The arrogance of him, that he thinks his opinion is worth more than that of two-thirds of voters. How bloody dare he.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



Advertisement