Brid Smith comments on High Court Judge

maestroamado

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/row-as-charlie-flanagan-accuses-td-of-sinister-attack-on-judge-39315743.html


I was just reading this, i do not really understand what it is all about but want to ask.


If as we are told the Government and the Judiciary are completely separate.


Why did Charlie Flanagan get involved in a spat between the Judiciary and Ms Brid Smith. Is this part of his brief??

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

I've changed the thread title to reflect the topic.

OP, you might need to maybe put in a bit more to start the discussion. Charlie Flannagan isn't really getting between the Judiciary and Brid Smith, he is pointing out that it is not appropriate for her to attack a Judge in this manner. But there may well be merit in discussing whether Politicans can or should discuss individual decisions and the Judges who make them.

Obviously as per the charter, a high standard of debate is required, and no name calling, insults etc. That applies to public figures as much as it applies to other posters!

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/row-as-charlie-flanagan-accuses-td-of-sinister-attack-on-judge-39315743.html


I was just reading this, i do not really understand what it is all about but want to ask.


If as we are told the Government and the Judiciary are completely separate.


Why did Charlie Flanagan get involved in a spat between the Judiciary and Ms Brid Smith. Is this part of his brief??

He's pointing out that the legislature and the judiciary are completely separate. Legislators should no more be pronouncing what judgments the courts should give than Ministers should.

joeguevara

A judges salary is irrelevant in this situation. If she disagreed in the judgment, attack that. It is a way of creating even more of a divide by making a personal attack. In my opinion it is incorrect and causes unnecessary tension. As standing minister for justice it was proper for him to call it out.

Fr Tod Umptious

And she doubled down on it with her response to Flannigan with something like "typical FG, always looking out for the elite..."

Brid Smith is in her second term as a TD.

You'd think she would know where the line is at this stage.
Or maybe she does and just likes crossing it anyway.

Hubertj

SNIP. No more petty insults please.

Robert McGrath

What’s worse is that instead of taking an opportunity to legitimately criticise the government, she’s opted for this populist nonsense. She could coherently say that the government has failed in its duty by passing an unconstitutional law. But that would take some level of nuance and analysis ...

Brid is more comfortable out on a protest with a megaphone.

Now she's going to have to sit down, do her job and legislate to fix it.

BaronVon

It is completely inappropriate, and typical of what we have seen in the UK and elsewhere. It's either a populist rant to appeal to her fanbase, or it's genuine ignorance of the rule of law and the democratic principles of the State......

Rosahane

BaronVon wrote: »

It is completely inappropriate, and typical of what we have seen in the UK and elsewhere. It's either a populist rant to appeal to her fanbase, or it's genuine ignorance of the rule of law and the democratic principles of the State......

Probably both in her case!

Notmything

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And she doubled down on it with her response to Flannigan with something like "typical FG, always looking out for the elite..."

Brid Smith is in her second term as a TD.

You'd think she would know where the line is at this stage.
Or maybe she does and just likes crossing it anyway.

Imo crossing that line is win/win for her. If she makes her statement and no one pulls her on it she wins as her claim is "perceived" to be right.

If, as has happened, she is tackled then she claims it's about those in power protecting their position to the cost of ordinary workers, who she is standing up for.

Her supporters are not concerned about separation of powers, and just see her being attacked by the establishment, reinforcing the efforts to create a permanent divide within society.

maestroamado

I am a bit confused with this.
When was this law on pay rates made?
I was not aware there were any law on pay rates other than min pay?

Hubertj

Notmything wrote: »

Imo crossing that line is win/win for her. If she makes her statement and no one pulls her on it she wins as her claim is "perceived" to be right.

If, as has happened, she is tackled then she claims it's about those in power protecting their position to the cost of ordinary workers, who she is standing up for.

Her supporters are not concerned about separation of powers, and just see her being attacked by the establishment, reinforcing the efforts to create a permanent divide within society.

I agree, the risk is that the type of people that support her will now target judges, solicitors, barristers etc similar to what these people did during water charge protests.

Geuze

maestroamado wrote: »

I am a bit confused with this.
When was this law on pay rates made?
I was not aware there were any law on pay rates other than min pay?

For decades there have been JLCs / REAs, etc.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/industrial_relations_and_trade_unions/employment_regulation_orders_and_registered_employment_agreements.html

Edgware

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And she doubled down on it with her response to Flannigan with something like "typical FG, always looking out for the elite..."

Brid Smith is in her second term as a TD.

You'd think she would know where the line is at this stage.
Or maybe she does and just likes crossing it anyway.

She is just like a number of other T.D.s in the Dail. Forever whinging, nothing positive to say and waiting for the Revolution which will cure all ills in society much like it did in North Korea. Having fools like her, Murphy and Barrett in the Dail is the price we pay for democracy.

marieholmfan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

I've changed the thread title to reflect the topic.

OP, you might need to maybe put in a bit more to start the discussion. Charlie Flannagan isn't really getting between the Judiciary and Brid Smith, he is pointing out that it is not appropriate for her to attack a Judge in this manner. But there may well be merit in discussing whether Politicans can or should discuss individual decisions and the Judges who make them.

Obviously as per the charter, a high standard of debate is required, and no name calling, insults etc. That applies to public figures as much as it applies to other posters!

He is asserting that. He isn't 'pointing it out'.

Peregrinus

I think to say that he was asserting it would imiply that he was arguing for a novel or contested proposition. But he isn't; the separation of powers is a fundamental and long-established constitutional principle. and one that Dail Eireann itself has invoked. He's "asserting" that deputies shouldn't second-guess judicial decisions in much the way that a doctor might "assert" that washing your hands has hygienic and health benefits.

Rodney Bathgate

Hubertj wrote: »

I agree, the risk is that the type of people that support her will now target judges, solicitors, barristers etc similar to what these people did during water charge protests.

The sort of scum who will protest outside a politicians house.

marieholmfan

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think to say that he was asserting it would imiply that he was arguing for a novel or contested proposition. But he isn't; the separation of powers is a fundamental and long-established constitutional principle. and one that Dail Eireann itself has invoked. He's "asserting" that deputies shouldn't second-guess judicial decisions in much the way that a doctor might "assert" that washing your hands has hygienic and health benefits.

Nonsense. I would suggest in fact that in this case the judiciary and the parties of the right are more like the Austrian medical establishment and Brid Smith is like Ignaz Semmelweis. After all sunlight is the best disinfectanct and if Garret Simons has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear

The age of freedom of contract is over and his judgement is bizarre. If there is no culture whatsoever of critical jurisprudence in Ireland; and with the exception of 'Prison Law' by Paul Anthony McDermott I've never heard of any; then it stands to reason that 'someone' has to keep an eye on the judges.

Like seriously is he attacking the very idea of statutory instruments?

Randy Archer

marieholmfan wrote: »

Nonsense. I would suggest in fact that in this case the judiciary and the parties of the right are more like the Austrian medical establishment and Brid Smith is like Ignaz Semmelweis. After all sunlight is the best disinfectanct and if Garret Simons has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear

The age of freedom of contract is over and his judgement is bizarre. If there is no culture whatsoever of critical jurisprudence in Ireland; and with the exception of 'Prison Law' by Paul Anthony McDermott I've never heard of any; then it stands to reason that 'someone' has to keep an eye on the judges.

Like seriously is he attacking the very idea of statutory instruments?

You seriously need to pick up the Constitution and perhaps purchase a book on the separation of powers by someone like David Gywn Morgan . You couldn’t be so wrong . As for judicial criticism , eh, it goes on in every monthly law view journal and the Law Reform Commission come together regularly when reviewing the law . Moreover, and more importantly , judges themselves at appeal or in another case (looking at precedent) can reject the views of their colleagues in matters in the strongest of terms - Hardiman J was good for that, Mckenchie has often strongly disagreed with his colleagues in his judgments

The Courts , themselves, are expected to take great care on not stepping on the toes of the democratically elected government and Parliament of the day , in their judgments , and rightly so . Thus, Parliament , especially members like Smith who are very wet behind the ears on the rule of law , shouldn’t be allowed to jump on Ill in formed populist soap boxes.

Brid, bless her, could have stood up in the dail and decry for the need to reform the offending legislation that was before the court ... but nah, she took the easy way out waffling about elites etc . Last thing we want are politicians with zero qualifications to be dictating the law (outside actual legislating ) to our courts .

God forbid she would draft up some private member bill , something useful like what Mick Wallace (for all his faults) Ming and Claire Daly were known for doing and trying

marieholmfan

If this criticism is in fact invalid then it can be addressed as such. The notion that a judge appointed by a right wing government with no process or oversight is in some sense outside politics is absurd.

Randy Archer wrote: »

You seriously need to pick up the Constitution and perhaps purchase a book on the separation of powers by someone like David Gywn Morgan . You couldn’t be so wrong . As for judicial criticism , eh, it goes on in every monthly law view journal and the Law Reform Commission come together regularly when reviewing the law . Moreover, and more importantly , judges themselves at appeal or in another case (looking at precedent) can reject the views of their colleagues in matters in the strongest of terms - Hardiman J was good for that, Mckenchie has often strongly disagreed with his colleagues in his judgments

The Courts , themselves, are expected to take great care on not stepping on the toes of the democratically elected government and Parliament of the day , in their judgments , and rightly so . Thus, Parliament , especially members like Smith who are very wet behind the ears on the rule of law , shouldn’t be allowed to jump on Ill in formed populist soap boxes.

Brid, bless her, could have stood up in the dail and decry for the need to reform the offending legislation that was before the court ... but nah, she took the easy way out waffling about elites etc . Last thing we want are politicians with zero qualifications to be dictating the law (outside actual legislating ) to our courts .

God forbid she would draft up some private member bill , something useful like what Mick Wallace (for all his faults) Ming and Claire Daly were known for doing and trying

Podge_irl

marieholmfan wrote: »

If this criticism is in fact invalid then it can be addressed as such. The notion that a judge appointed by a right wing government with no process or oversight is in some sense outside politics is absurd.

She offered no valid criticism full stop. She offered no criticism outside of her not liking the judgement. She can point to no fallacious or contentious interpretation of law. She is, in essence, criticising a judge for not taking the law into his own hands and putting forth what she considers the "right" judgement. A judgement she desires based on the outcome rather than the process.

Not only is she undermining the separation of powers by the very existence of her comments, she is undermining it by the content also.

Hubertj

marieholmfan wrote: »

If this criticism is in fact invalid then it can be addressed as such. The notion that a judge appointed by a right wing government with no process or oversight is in some sense outside politics is absurd.

If you consider the government to be right wing you clearly won’t/don’t understand what has happened.
The judge did nothing wrong. Smith has decided that the judge made a personal decision in the case. This clearly makes accusations about his integrity and professionalism. Unfortunately the type of people that vote for her believe the nonsense she comes out with.

PeadarCo

marieholmfan wrote: »

If this criticism is in fact invalid then it can be addressed as such. The notion that a judge appointed by a right wing government with no process or oversight is in some sense outside politics is absurd.

You are making a fairly serious accusation against the judge and court system in general. You are saying decisions are make based their perceived political implications/merits and not established legal principles.

Ironically Brid Smith dissatisfaction is entirety political. She didn't like the outcome. However instead of doing her job as a TD and preparing a private members bill to achieve her goals by legal means she calls on the courts to make political decisions not legal ones. The separation of powers is critically important.

The legal system should be independent of the government of the day. Look at any authoritarian government and you'll see the dangers. Even where the separation of powers does exist its dangerous to politicise the judiciary. Look at the USA where while judges are independent their appointment process has become very political.

Remember Brid Smith is a member of party whose ideology more or less mandates authoritarianism and has a long history of supporting dictators and human rights abusers. Making statements that undermine an independent legal system does nothing to disspell the notion that given the chance her party would follow route.

Randy Archer

marieholmfan wrote: »

If this criticism is in fact invalid then it can be addressed as such. The notion that a judge appointed by a right wing government with no process or oversight is in some sense outside politics is absurd.

Judges are primarily picked based on their careers as barristers and solicitors . Over the course of 20-30 years they would have represented people and companies of ALL walks of life and politics and background .

Judges , who as barristers who got briefs from governments of the day or even act as Attorney Generals or even once was a member or TD for a political party have a long history of being prepared to rule against governments . Hardiman J was a die in the wool PD , yet , often ruled against the government in criminal law matters and did so extremely heavily , in legendary fashion .

Our current Chief Justice would have been a FG man but one of the Costello FG types and has a long history of showing concern in cases about the less well off and is pretty passionate about changed to improve access to courts for legal aid , it at the same time is capable of dealing with complex corporate matters without acting like some commie shill . Labour have over the decades had a disportionate amount of their guys and girls become High Court judges compared to the the time labour were in government and they have never been shy from using their independence as judges and lawyers . Guess what folks , judges are capable of being independent and get away from their normal political bias . But they can’t just ignore precedent from other cases or long established principals of law

That still doesn’t deal with the fact that judges, be they conservative or liberal or middle of the road can only deal with the facts before them and what the law says and the established principles on interpreting the law . Days of judicial activism come and go .

Oversight ? By who ? Some gob****e glorified county councillor or some mega phone career protester (Brid) whose politics actually completely against what the majority of Irish people stand for , having any say in who is selected for the judiciary . They ain’t remotely qualified . And based on what Brid actually said , proves that she simply doesn’t understand how the law and governance work

Separation of powers and mutual respect between the courts and the oireachtas is real and vital . As judges aren’t and shouldn’t be elected by the people (most of whom can’t be trusted to manage a piss up in a brewery or vote In a. Referendum based on facts ) there is only so much a court can and should do in areas that are more suited to lobbying the government or public campaign and protest over . (Where the law is clear what the limits are) likewise fools like Brid Smith mouthing off about people and matters that she has not got a clue about

Smith made groundless claims and highlighted her ignorance . Even Paul Murphy didn’t stoop to this level (I think he has some sort of legal qualification ) And she’s a legislator ? Oh Christ

As I said , the best reaction would have been for her to do what Ming , Daly and Wallace did - campaign for private members bills and campaign and talk about law reform . But nah . Mega phone protesting is her bag

In the words of another TD who disrespected the separation of powers division of a former President ... Brid Smith “is a thundering disgrace”

marieholmfan

A millionaire who spent his career advising property developers on how to finagle the planning regulations will have a different view on how society should be structured than a woman who has spent her life fighting for the disadvantaged,

Judges are human and have human biases.
They possess a lot of property and will always serve the interests of the propertied (judges as a class - it must be merely coincidence that Garret Simons in his judgment here serves the interests of the rich against the poor or at least the middling).

That's why we get the bizarre lissadell judgement or the equally bizarre Thomas Reid judgement.

Adrian Hardiman was like a cancer in the Irish legal system; he was the foot in the boot stamping on the face of the poor.

I don't accept for one second that the Irish legal system is independent in any meaningful sense. It exists to protect the rich and to punish the poor.

PeadarCo wrote: »

You are making a fairly serious accusation against the judge and court system in general. You are saying decisions are make based their perceived political implications/merits and not established legal principles.

Ironically Brid Smith dissatisfaction is entirety political. She didn't like the outcome. However instead of doing her job as a TD and preparing a private members bill to achieve her goals by legal means she calls on the courts to make political decisions not legal ones. The separation of powers is critically important.

The legal system should be independent of the government of the day. Look at any authoritarian government and you'll see the dangers. Even where the separation of powers does exist its dangerous to politicise the judiciary. Look at the USA where while judges are independent their appointment process has become very political.

Remember Brid Smith is a member of party whose ideology more or less mandates authoritarianism and has a long history of supporting dictators and human rights abusers. Making statements that undermine an independent legal system does nothing to disspell the notion that given the chance her party would follow route.

joeguevara

marieholmfan wrote: »

A millionaire who spent his career advising property developers on how to finagle the planning regulations will have a different view on how society should be structured than a woman who has spent her life fighting for the disadvantaged,

Judges are human and have human biases.
They possess a lot of property and will always serve the interests of the propertied (judges as a class - it must be merely coincidence that Garret Simons in his judgment here serves the interests of the rich against the poor or at least the middling).

That's why we get the bizarre lissadell judgement or the equally bizarre Thomas Reid judgement.

Adrian Hardiman was like a cancer in the Irish legal system; he was the foot in the boot stamping on the face of the poor.

I don't accept for one second that the Irish legal system is independent in any meaningful sense. It exists to protect the rich and to punish the poor.

You talk absolute sh1te. Firstly a judge will make less money than he/she did as a barrister. Also, there is a little thing called legal precedent, persuasive law and legislation that they must follow. They don't just decide cases on a whim. Sick of all this punish the poor bs.

VinLieger

joeguevara wrote: »

You talk absolute sh1te. Firstly a judge will make less money than he/she did as a barrister. Also, there is a little thing called legal precedent, persuasive law and legislation that they must follow. They don't just decide cases on a whim. Sick of all this punish the poor bs.

Its classic projection. Brid and her supporters are just projecting how they would want to act if they were in this judges position and rule in favour of their own causes regardless of the actual limitations and restrictions of the law.

They assume because its what they would do its what everyone already does.

BaronVon

marieholmfan wrote: »

A millionaire who spent his career advising property developers on how to finagle the planning regulations will have a different view on how society should be structured than a woman who has spent her life fighting for the disadvantaged,

Judges are human and have human biases.
They possess a lot of property and will always serve the interests of the propertied (judges as a class - it must be merely coincidence that Garret Simons in his judgment here serves the interests of the rich against the poor or at least the middling).

That's why we get the bizarre lissadell judgement or the equally bizarre Thomas Reid judgement.

Adrian Hardiman was like a cancer in the Irish legal system; he was the foot in the boot stamping on the face of the poor.

I don't accept for one second that the Irish legal system is independent in any meaningful sense. It exists to protect the rich and to punish the poor.

Wow......

Thankfully we have judges who follow the rule of law, or else we'd have your communist utopia instead.......

Yes, judges are normally from fairly privileged sectors of society, and yes we all have some forms of bias, but it does not mean that judges aren't aware of these things, and are incapable, or unwilling, to take these factors into account when making a judgement.

I haven't read this judgement, but things like this happen all the time. Isn't it a wonderful part of a fully functioning democracy that we have judges who can rule that the government have passed bad law, and tell them that it needs changing.

And that's what will happen, the competent legislators will get together, identify the issues with the previous statute, and remedy them. And others will just mouth off with ignorant soundbites......

Randy Archer

marieholmfan wrote: »

A millionaire who spent his career advising property developers on how to finagle the planning regulations will have a different view on how society should be structured than a woman who has spent her life fighting for the disadvantaged,

Judges are human and have human biases.
They possess a lot of property and will always serve the interests of the propertied (judges as a class - it must be merely coincidence that Garret Simons in his judgment here serves the interests of the rich against the poor or at least the middling).

That's why we get the bizarre lissadell judgement or the equally bizarre Thomas Reid judgement.

Adrian Hardiman was like a cancer in the Irish legal system; he was the foot in the boot stamping on the face of the poor.

I don't accept for one second that the Irish legal system is independent in any meaningful sense. It exists to protect the rich and to punish the poor.

Brid Smith has done sfa . Writing strongly worded and angry letters and roaring through a mega phone does and did little. What has she done ?

As bad as Mick Wallace was, outside the Dail, he, Clare Daly and Ming tried to act like legislators and were active in serious attempts to bring in legislation that affect people . They even got a few key changes over the line

Brid ? Not so much

As for your scurrilous claims “how to finagle the planning legislation” , eh what ?

Planning legislation effects every person who owns property , from the humble home owner who wants to extend their house to property speculators . Planning legislation is complex and there are exemptions in place for different scenarios . It’s also a greatly onerous system (as it should be) Not every piece of legislation is well thought out , sometimes it badly needs reform , legitimately spotting loopholes , due to the legislator’s (ie people like Brid) oversight is not wrong or something shady

You have nothing to back up those comments

Time and time again , any decent Labour TD eg Ruairi Quinn came from middle class backgrounds . Look at Mary Robinson ffs , as a lawyer . The “wurking” class , like Brid, can’t organise a piss up in a brewery . Hell Richard Boyd Barrett and Paul Murphy can’t be said to ever have been paupers . Least Barrett appears genuine in his concerns and tries to offer alternatives

You really don’t know what you are talking about with regard to the legal system . The legal system by the way is primarily legislated by Parliament who in turn are elected by the people. The people are also the final arbitrators of bunreacht an heireann .

The people have and will continue , in the majority to reject socialism

If you want to be taken seriously , understand what a judge does and what they can’t do

Oddly enough, a few years ago we have two referendums that would have interfered with the Independence of the Court - giving more power to the Oireachtas to investigate and cross examine people and judges pay. Guess what ? The majority of the public rejected both proposals and recognise the importance of judicial independence

CrabRevolution

Randy Archer wrote: »

Brid Smith has done sfa . Writing strongly worded and angry letters and roaring through a mega phone does and did little. What has she done ?

As bad as Mick Wallace was, outside the Dail, he, Clare Daly and Ming tried to act like legislators and were active in serious attempts to bring in legislation that affect people . They even got a few key changes over the line

Brid ? Not so much

As for your scurrilous claims “how to finagle the planning legislation” , eh what ?

Planning legislation effects every person who owns property , from the humble home owner who wants to extend their house to property speculators . Planning legislation is complex and there are exemptions in place for different scenarios . It’s also a greatly onerous system (as it should be) Not every piece of legislation is well thought out , sometimes it badly needs reform , legitimately spotting loopholes , due to the legislator’s (ie people like Brid) oversight is not wrong or something shady

You have nothing to back up those comments

Time and time again , any decent Labour TD eg Ruairi Quinn came from middle class backgrounds . Look at Mary Robinson ffs , as a lawyer . The “wurking” class , like Brid, can’t organise a piss up in a brewery . Hell Richard Boyd Barrett and Paul Murphy can’t be said to ever have been paupers . Least Barrett appears genuine in his concerns and tries to offer alternatives

You really don’t know what you are talking about with regard to the legal system . The legal system by the way is primarily legislated by Parliament who in turn are elected by the people. The people are also the final arbitrators of bunreacht an heireann .

The people have and will continue , in the majority to reject socialism

If you want to be taken seriously , understand what a judge does and what they can’t do

Oddly enough, a few years ago we have two referendums that would have interfered with the Independence of the Court - giving more power to the Oireachtas to investigate and cross examine people and judges pay. Guess what ? The majority of the public rejected both proposals and recognise the importance of judicial independence

While I agree with the gist of your post, the public did approve the amendment on judges' pay in 2011.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

If this criticism is in fact invalid then it can be addressed as such. The notion that a judge appointed by a right wing government with no process or oversight is in some sense outside politics is absurd.

I agree, but I also believe that judges, when interpreting the law, should be entitled to use their political outlooks, within reason, as appropriate to the circumstances of the case. I believe they already do -- just look at the history of landmark cases in which some Supreme Court judges chose to emphasize the Christian character of the state, while others tended towards a more liberal bent.

It stands to reason that a government appointee should reflect the democratic values of that government.

Anyway, that's possibly slightly off-topic on my behalf, because I believe the thrust of Brid Smith's point was the irony of someone on 200k per year (approximately) making a decision like this against workers who are already on very modest wages. I think a lot of us probably find that situation uncomfortable. I wasn't aware that ordinary judges of the High Court were on that kind of salary. It seems a little obscene. There are 36 of them.

James Brown

I think Brid is doing an excellent job. Nobody is above criticism including the judiciary. We need public representation that puts people above sponsors or any other intetests.
Too often we see workers left twisting in the wind. The Cleary's closure for instance.

An Ri rua

Bowie wrote: »

I think Brid is doing an excellent job. Nobody is above criticism including the judiciary. We need public representation that puts people above sponsors or any other intetests.
Too often we see workers left twisting in the wind. The Cleary's closure for instance.

What are you talking about? Brid Smith was elected on a mandate and that was given under the auspices of the Constitution. She can't just go on solo runs and attack judiciary. You might find more sustenance back on Facebook or Twitter with your poorly grounded ideas. Boards, also, world on a set of rules.

An Ri rua

An Ri rua wrote: »

What are you talking about? Brid Smith was elected on a mandate and that was given under the auspices of the Constitution. She can't just go on solo runs and attack judiciary.

Can't? Do you mean shouldn't?

The Constitution obligates judges to execute the functions of their office independently. It doesn't prohibit criticism of their decisions, even by TDs.

The criticism offered by Brid Smith is of a very tame nature, it is even arguably true. His salary is enormous, by any standard, and 'to put the boot in' is to treat someone harshly, often when they are vulnerable.
She hasn't accused him of being corrupt or having done anything illegal, which would be a genuine source of grievance. Are judges to be above all criticism, in a democratic society?

Much of the anger at her comments seems totally exaggerated, really.

PeadarCo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Anyway, that's possibly slightly off-topic on my behalf, because I believe the thrust of Brid Smith's point was the irony of someone on 200k per year (approximately) making a decision like this against workers who are already on very modest wages. I think a lot of us probably find that situation uncomfortable. I wasn't aware that ordinary judges of the High Court were on that kind of salary. It seems a little obscene. There are 36 of them.

A judges salary has nothing to do with the decision. She isn't actually even critising the decision itself. She is it critising the judges because she doesn't like the result and her criticism is as homemin. Or if you were to put in the context of boards she's attacking the poster not the post. Something thats not tolerated on a random Internet forum like boards never mind something as serious as the law of the land.

As others have pointed out if a person wants to make money stick to being a barrister or solicitor don't become a judge.

The process of how the judges came to their decision and isn't free from criticism. Even within decisions themselves you often have dissenting opinions which can be influential in the long term. The process and legal arguments used are very important due to the importance of precedent in our legal system. It gives predictability to the legal system. A politician can comment on the legal arguments but that's not what Brid has done she has complained about the result. If different people had been impacted by the same legal reasoning she wouldn't have cared. It's what Trump does. To hell with the legal process and the unwritten rules that make democracy work. Let's throw the toys out of the pram when I don't like the result.

Remember Brid Murphy is a part of party whose founding ideology has resulted in millions of deaths in the name of that ideology and countless more abuses of human rights. An independent judiciary is a critically important barrier to dictators. But independence can be as much about perception and that what homemin attacks by people like Brid Murphy are so serious.


Also what your post amounts to is saying that low paid workers are above the law because a judge with a salary above X can't be trusted to make a fair decision. This I hope is obviously ridiculous but its where you end up if you say a judges salary are somehow relevant to the facts of a case before them.

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

A judges salary has nothing to do with the decision.

Have you seen the judgment? I think she might have found some irony in the judge, on 200k per year, with absolutely no self-awareness, causing these workers' very modest incomes "high rates of remunderation". He said while the workers might like this, he didn't think it was competitive. Thousands of workers with families to look after are now facing a drop in income from about 18 euro to the minimum wage.

Does that give some extra context here? The judge made some other comments in his judgment about failures of the Labour Court which I actually agree had some mertit, but it was no doubt the above lines that rankled with Brid Smith and, surely, every person with an ounce of common sense in their heads.

I'm also tired of this notion that judges go into the job in pursuit of public service and take a massive pay cut. I am sure that, like most citizens, they feel a strong sense of duty to the country. But I don't know if that's even necessarily true about the pay cut; in any case, the public-sector, index-linked pensions, guaranteed by the state, are obviously a huge advantage after years of private practice. That's another interesting aspect: The ruling now means that employers no longer have to contribute 30 quid (!!) a week towards these tradespeople's pensions, as had been agreed.

But lets not comment on judges' pay and pensions, that's so vulgar.

Townton

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you seen the judgment? I think she might have found some irony in the judge, on 200k per year, with absolutely no self-awareness, causing these workers' very modest incomes "high rates of remunderation". He said while the workers might like this, he didn't think it was competitive. Thousands of workers with families to look after are now facing a drop in income from about 18 euro to the minimum wage.

Does that give some extra context here? The judge made some other comments in his judgment about failures of the Labour Court which I actually agree had some mertit, but it was no doubt the above lines that rankled with Brid Smith and, surely, every person with an ounce of common sense in their heads.

I'm also tired of this notion that judges go into the job in pursuit of public service and take a massive pay cut. I am sure that, like most citizens, they feel a strong sense of duty to the country. But I don't know if that's even necessarily true about the pay cut; in any case, the public-sector, index-linked pensions, guaranteed by the state, are obviously a huge advantage after years of private practice. That's another interesting aspect: The ruling now means that employers no longer have to contribute 30 quid (!!) a week towards these tradespeople's pensions, as had been agreed.

But lets not comment on judges' pay and pensions, that's so vulgar.

Read it the arguments made were legal ones with some very technical points of law and fact involved. Salary of the judge has nothing to do with it. They don't wake up saying how can I screw someone. Indeed the best judge you can have is one that says I don't like my decision but the law is clear and its not a matter of opinion. Issue rests with the legislator who have failed these people ironically that includes Deputy Smith.

Townton

PeadarCo wrote: »

A judges salary has nothing to do with the decision. She isn't actually even critising the decision itself. She is it critising the judges because she doesn't like the result and her criticism is as homemin. Or if you were to put in the context of boards she's attacking the poster not the post. Something thats not tolerated on a random Internet forum like boards never mind something as serious as the law of the land.

As others have pointed out if a person wants to make money stick to being a barrister or solicitor don't become a judge.

The process of how the judges came to their decision and isn't free from criticism. Even within decisions themselves you often have dissenting opinions which can be influential in the long term. The process and legal arguments used are very important due to the importance of precedent in our legal system. It gives predictability to the legal system. A politician can comment on the legal arguments but that's not what Brid has done she has complained about the result. If different people had been impacted by the same legal reasoning she wouldn't have cared. It's what Trump does. To hell with the legal process and the unwritten rules that make democracy work. Let's throw the toys out of the pram when I don't like the result.

Remember Brid Murphy is a part of party whose founding ideology has resulted in millions of deaths in the name of that ideology and countless more abuses of human rights. An independent judiciary is a critically important barrier to dictators. But independence can be as much about perception and that what homemin attacks by people like Brid Murphy are so serious.


Also what your post amounts to is saying that low paid workers are above the law because a judge with a salary above X can't be trusted to make a fair decision. This I hope is obviously ridiculous but its where you end up if you say a judges salary are somehow relevant to the facts of a case before them.

Does raise the important point of why we are surprised that someone who is ideologically opposed to the idea of an independent judiciary, takes issue with the decisions of an independent judiciary.

Gives us stuff to talk about here at least.

PeadarCo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you seen the judgment? I think she might have found some irony in the judge, on 200k per year, with absolutely no self-awareness, causing these workers' very modest incomes "high rates of remunderation". He said while the workers might like this, he didn't think it was competitive. Thousands of workers with families to look after are now facing a drop in income from about 18 euro to the minimum wage.

Does that give some extra context here? The judge made some other comments in his judgment about failures of the Labour Court which I actually agree had some mertit, but it was no doubt the above lines that rankled with Brid Smith and, surely, every person with an ounce of common sense in their heads.

I'm also tired of this notion that judges go into the job in pursuit of public service and take a massive pay cut. I am sure that, like most citizens, they feel a strong sense of duty to the country. But I don't know if that's even necessarily true about the pay cut; in any case, the public-sector, index-linked pensions, guaranteed by the state, are obviously a huge advantage after years of private practice. That's another interesting aspect: The ruling now means that employers no longer have to contribute 30 quid (!!) a week towards these tradespeople's pensions, as had been agreed.

But lets not comment on judges' pay and pensions, that's so vulgar.

What has any of your post got to do with the judgement itself?

I get you don't like the result but obviously you don't disagree with the Judges legal logic. This legal logic is important as that is what gives the law predictablity and ensures its not one law or one person and another for someone else. If the same legal logic had impacted someone "rich"/some who isn't in line with her ideology she wouldn't have had an issue. Which is hypocrisy. Its what Trump does.

So you don't like the result of the ruling? Have you been onto your local TD? In the case of Brid Murphy maybe instead of undermining the indepence of the judiciary may be should actually do her job and propose a private members bill or lobby the government to introduce a bill that achieves the same goal but within the laws and constitution of the state. Remember like Judges Brid Murphy is relatively well paid to do her job.

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

What has any of your post got to do with the judgement itself?

I get you don't like the result but obviously you don't disagree with the Judges legal logic.

I don't know if I disagree with his logic, because I don't know what the alternative views would be regarding some of his points. The legislation that he struck down as unconstitutional will have been approved by an Attorney General, and that former Attorney-General is now a judge on the Court of Appeal (I'm not saying she'd be hearing this case, just pointing out that there must be a some contradictory view).

In any case, Brid Smith's point wasn't on a point of law. She pointed out the hypocrisy of this judge announcing that 18 euro per hour is "a hugh rate of remuneration" when he is on 200k of public money, and that the agreement reached between emoloyers and employees is not competitive; clearly he thinks the employers can do better than that.

I think that a remark like that needs to be challenged robustly by our public representatives -- people who, by the way, are just as equally protected under the Separation of Powers as the judges are. To read the judges' criticism of Brid Smith in their lengthy essay, you'd think the Separation of Powers only existed to protect them.

The level of hyperbole regarding Brid Smith's comments is pretty wild. If she had accused a judge of being a traitor, or corrupt, the criticism would be totally merited. She said the guy was paid too much and that he was giving vulnerable people the boot; a lot of people might agree. I do.
But the AJI went off on one, implying this the very Rule of Law was in danger. I have never encountered such abject sensitivity anywhere in public life, have you?

Dyr

I remember I was at an event once that Brid was at and I borrowed a pen off her to write something down (for her) She went looking for me afterwards wanting her pen back was only a cheap yoke too. So much for socialism.

Podge_irl

Bowie wrote: »

I think Brid is doing an excellent job. Nobody is above criticism including the judiciary. We need public representation that puts people above sponsors or any other intetests.
Too often we see workers left twisting in the wind. The Cleary's closure for instance.

You don't find it at all worrying that an elected representative claims she is waiting for FG to come out and "defend workers" after a high court judge ruled against their govt? Varadkar has taken the sensible approach of appealing to the Supreme Court, Smith wants him to subvert the rule of law and separation of powers and you'd prefer the latter!?

Smith has politicised the judiciary - she in fact wants FG to to try and subvert the judiciary to force through their own law. She is an opposition TD proposing the govt subvert the judiciary!

PeadarCo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't know if I disagree with his logic, because I don't know what the alternative views would be regarding some of his points. The legislation that he struck down as unconstitutional will have been approved by an Attorney General, and that former Attorney-General is now a judge on the Court of Appeal (I'm not saying she'd be hearing this case, just pointing out that there must be a some contradictory view).

In any case, Brid Smith's point wasn't on a point of law. She pointed out the hypocrisy of this judge announcing that 18 euro per hour is "a hugh rate of remuneration" when he is on 200k of public money, and that the agreement reached between emoloyers and employees is not competitive; clearly he thinks the employers can do better than that.

I think that a remark like that needs to be challenged robustly by our public representatives -- people who, by the way, are just as equally protected under the Separation of Powers as the judges are. To read the judges' criticism of Brid Smith in their lengthy essay, you'd think the Separation of Powers only existed to protect them.

The level of hyperbole regarding Brid Smith's comments is pretty wild. If she had accused a judge of being a traitor, or corrupt, the criticism would be totally merited. She said the guy was paid too much and that he was giving vulnerable people the boot; a lot of people might agree. I do.
But the AJI went off on one, implying this the very Rule of Law was in danger. I have never encountered such abject sensitivity anywhere in public life, have you?

So again you don't like the result but don't know and or understand the reasoning. And just because a law has been passed it does not mean its automatically constitutional. Its the courts job to decide that. Its Brid Murphys job as a TD to pass legislation. However the Dail or any TD does not get to decide if a law ultimately is in line with the constitution. That's the job of the Supreme Court. This case is not the first time the Supreme Court has overruled the Dail and hopefully it won't be the last. As the Supreme Court particularly acts as a check on the Dail and more importantly the government of the day it is very important that they are not only independent but seen to independent. Brid Murphy has brought this into question.

The wages of everyone who have been impacted and the judges that made the decision are irrelevant. The judges didn't rule on wages specifically. That's not to say you can't have a discussion on them but she has used the judges wages to bring them into question saying they are beholden to some mythical "elite" and therefore can't be trusted because they earn X salary. As I have said if she really wants to help the people impacted she could start by doing her job and not by acting like a wanabe dictator.

Brid Murphy is challenging the rule of law in a small way. Look a Trump and any dictator. One of the biggest steps to a dictatorship is undermining the independence of the judiciary to ensure its does not hold members of Parliament to account. Now remember Brid Murphy is a TD. She is challenging the right of the court to overrule her on the basis that it doesn't support her ideology. So the AJI was perfectly correct. Look at Trump and the damage he did, look at the damage dictators do full stop.

It's important that the rule of law is upheld. That starts with the people who make the law TD's like Brid Murphy. If TD's make laws that are bad worded or go against the constitution it's important that they accept the authority of the courts to overrule them.

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

So again you don't like the result but don't know and or understand the reasoning.

I understand the reasoning, I do not know what the criticism would be. I could go off to Justis and enter some keywords and come back with a fistful of cases that might offer alternative possibilities, as lawyers for the State obviously will have done in greater detail at the hearing, but this is not an attempt to re-run the case and nobody wants to turn this place into a schoolboys' moot court.

That's why I don't want to get into the intricacies of the law here, it's pointless. We will hear all of the arguments again when this is appealed by actual legal professionals. So can we give that point a rest, at last?

And just because a law has been passed it does not mean its automatically constitutional. Its the courts job to decide that. Its Brid Murphys job as a TD to pass legislation. However the Dail or any TD does not get to decide if a law ultimately is in line with the constitution. That's the job of the Supreme Court. This case is not the first time the Supreme Court has overruled the Dail

Thank you I think most of us are already familiar with the very fundamental roles of the courts, but this was a High Court challenge, it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet. Nobody is disputing the roles of the courts in scrutinizing legislation or even checking a ministers powers.

The wages of everyone who have been impacted and the judges that made the decision are irrelevant. The judges didn't rule on wages specifically.

The wages are not irrelevant to the guys raising families who've been told by a judge earning a massive taxpayer-funded salary that their wages, which were agreed with employers, of 18 euro are "very high" and not competitive enough. That absolutely is the crux of this, that's what has gotten people irritated.

Finally, I'm not getting into an argument that Brid Smith is usurping the Rule of Law with her mild criticism, because that's absurd. Nobody but nobody is beyond criticism, not even public sector workers earning 200k per year.

James Brown

An Ri rua wrote: »

What are you talking about? Brid Smith was elected on a mandate and that was given under the auspices of the Constitution. She can't just go on solo runs and attack judiciary. You might find more sustenance back on Facebook or Twitter with your poorly grounded ideas. Boards, also, world on a set of rules.

Every body is open to criticism. There are no 'no go' areas IMO.
Her mandate is to represent the interests of the public.
Facebook and Twitter are merely social mediums. Nothing wrong with discussion. Telling people what they can and cannot criticise is were we have a problem.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

You don't find it at all worrying that an elected representative claims she is waiting for FG to come out and "defend workers" after a high court judge ruled against their govt? Varadkar has taken the sensible approach of appealing to the Supreme Court, Smith wants him to subvert the rule of law and separation of powers and you'd prefer the latter!?

Smith has politicised the judiciary - she in fact wants FG to to try and subvert the judiciary to force through their own law. She is an opposition TD proposing the govt subvert the judiciary!

I find it hopeful.

The judiciary are already politicised. The idea that they may be out of touch is very valid, as shown by this particular judge IMO.

joeguevara

Bowie wrote: »

I find it hopeful.

The judiciary are already politicised. The idea that they may be out of touch is very valid, as shown by this particular judge IMO.

What in your opinion is wrong with this particular judge? Have you read the judgment? What in your opinion is incorrect with it?

James Brown

joeguevara wrote: »

What in your opinion is wrong with this particular judge? Have you read the judgment? What in your opinion is incorrect with it?

Wrong? His attitude, but that's an opinion not a legal claim. Legally incorrect? We possibly conferred too broad a discretion upon his trade.

Mr Ó Fearghaíl wrote to Ms Smith in the wake of receiving a formal complaint on Thursday from Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan, in which he said the Deputy’s comments in the Dáil in relation to the judge were “highly personalised” and “an attack on democracy itself”.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ceann-comhairle-writes-to-br%C3%ADd-smith-over-comments-about-judge-1.4289775

Flanagan has as much business as Smith commenting. Flanagan could have simply said she should not have commented but he went further with his "attack on democracy" dramatics.

Here's what she said:

In the Dáil on Wednesday, Ms Smith said it was “a day when tens of thousands of workers will wake up to the realisation that a learned judge of the High Court, who earns more than €220,000 per year, has decided in his wisdom that an electrician who may earn €45,000 per year is possibly overpaid, and has then struck down a sectoral employment order that will affect tens of thousands of workers already on low pay. This is a war on workers, and it is time for workers to fight back.”

She was right to call attention to it. She was referencing facts. The working tax payer needs representation. People should be able to request a wage based on their work and in the least expect a reasonable base salary. I suppose they can strike assuming that's still allowed.

Podge_irl

Bowie wrote: »

She was right to call attention to it. She was referencing facts. The working tax payer needs representation. People should be able to request a wage based on their work and in the least expect a reasonable base salary. I suppose they can strike assuming that's still allowed.

She is not referencing facts. The judgement has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not electricians are overpaid. She also has the salary of the judge wrong - not that it bears the slightest relevance to the case. Its also wildly unclear who, in fact, she is expecting the workers to "fight back" against - she wants to set up barricades at the High Court perhaps. None of what you have said is all that relevant to the judgement either.

The ruling was based on the minister passing secondary legislation that he had no authority to pass. The judge was constraining the powers of the executive - normally seen as a positive thing. A far better course of action would be for Smith to attempt to do something about this through a private member's bill - seeing as that is in fact her job.


This is a perfect example of people losing the run of themselves because they don't like the outcome and coming out with dangerous and completely misguided rhetoric that unfortunately people will lap up. Unconstrained and unfettered executive power is all fine and dandy if they're doing stuff you like eh?

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

She is not referencing facts. The judgement has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not electricians are overpaid.

He described the salaries, agreed between unions and employers as "high rates of remuneration" and suggested it wasn't competitive enough.

18 euro an hour, they're now facing minimum wage or just above it.

Anyone who thinks this isn't an egregiously harsh thing to say, to families who are already struggling during a pandemic, well, I shouldn't finish that sentence. Quite apart from the legal principles at play, which will be determined by another Court, this lack of sensitivity would take most decent people aback.

I know the decision is only preliminary and hasn't been finalised, but it will be interesting to see if he suspends the declaration of unconstitutionality for the sake of these workers, to allow the Department to find a solution.