Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Should Supreme Court Justice Séamus Woulfe resign over Golfgate

  • 28-08-2020 7:37am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    I was wondering whether Justice Séamus Woulfe should just do the right thing and resign over GOLFGATE.
    The reason I say this is as follows: as the former Attorney General (top legal adviser to the Oireachtas), Supreme Court Justice Woulfe would have been all to aware of the Covid regulations. In my opinion this should have been foremost in his mind as he was led into a room with over 80 guests for a sit down meal at the Oireachtas golf society dinner.

    There is also the optics of having the highest Judge in the State sitting down alongside bank lobbyists, present and former Members of the Oireachtas, together with journalists. (Separation of Powers) at an Oireachtas Golf Society dinner. Where there not alarm bells going off in Justice Woulfe’s head, if not, then why not.

    What are people’s thoughts on the matter?


«13456738

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You're obsessed


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,911 ✭✭✭ begbysback


    If at 8:37am you are wondering if somebody should lose their job today then maybe one needs a better morning routine?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No, he broke no law and was not in an official capacity.

    You are suggesting that judges can never socialise in the vicinity of a multitude of other professions.

    I was at a wedding recently, bumped into a judge I have been before. We didn't talk shop, acknowledged each other and went about our business. Which one of us should have been forced to leave a family event?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    bubblypop wrote: »
    You're obsessed

    No, your just completely asleep. This is, without doubt, the most important current affairs topic on this site at the present. The highest Judge in the land hasn’t the moral compass to do the right thing and step down, while A TD, a Senator, and an EU Commissioner have (EU Commissioner might of got a little nudge).

    If Mr Woulfe remains he will ultimately be making determinations on matters of great public importance and on Constitutional issues in the Supreme Court. If the man didn’t have the basic cop on not to be a an event where the Covid regulations where been flouted, then come on!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭ paw patrol


    No, he broke no law and was not in an official capacity.

    You are suggesting that judges can never socialise in the vicinity of a multitude of other professions.

    I was at a wedding recently, bumped into a judge I have been before. We didn't talk shop, acknowledged each other and went about our business. Which one of us should have been forced to leave a family event?


    yes I think it's wrong for a supreme court judge to hobknob with political types. The supreme court will hear constitutional challenges where the state/government is a party. I think there should be no doubt as to their unbias nature. Its the cost of having such a prestigious position.


    he broke the covid regulations are they not laws? Laws he actually wrote when he was AG.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    No, he broke no law and was not in an official capacity.

    You are suggesting that judges can never socialise in the vicinity of a multitude of other professions.

    I was at a wedding recently, bumped into a judge I have been before. We didn't talk shop, acknowledged each other and went about our business. Which one of us should have been forced to leave a family event?

    He would have had complete oversight on the Covid-19 regulations as he was our Attorney General at the time they were drafted, for God sake, weddings can only have 50 guests maximum in attendance, so your analogy is moot. “All men are equal, but some are more equal than others” springs to mind.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Phishnet wrote: »
    No, your just completely asleep. This is, without doubt, the most important current affairs topic on this site at the present.

    Not asleep at all, am working since 6.45
    Don't see the need to have 20 different threads on the same issue.
    How many did you start yesterday?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Not asleep at all, am working since 6.45
    Don't see the need to have 20 different threads on the same issue.
    How many did you start yesterday?

    You are obviously taking the literal meaning of being asleep. I believe there is no point lumping separate threads into The “Phil Hogan must resign” thread so that pertinent posts about Mr Woulfe get lost in nearly 4000 posts within. Readers now know that Mr Hogan has done the honourable thing and resigned, so they would not be searching that thread for opinions about our Supreme Court Judge. However, it might be in some people’s interest to lump this thread in there as well and bury it in the myriad of other posts. That’s a form a censorship. From your insightful posts on this thread to date, can I ask are you related to Mr Woulfe or what’s exactly the issue with you? Do you feel he should resign or brass neck it out?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,815 ✭✭✭ robbiezero


    Phishnet wrote: »
    He would have had complete oversight on the Covid-19 regulations as he was our Attorney General at the time they were drafted, for God sake, weddings can only have 50 guests maximum in attendance, so your analogy is moot. “All men are equal, but some are more equal than others” springs to mind.

    He didn't organise it. If I went to a wedding and there was 81 there, not a hope would I be turning around to leave it, so I'm not going to judge him for not doing so.
    Its surely near time to be putting the pitch forks down, although the next "cause" has not arrived yet


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,053 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    Phishnet wrote: »
    There is no point lumping separate threads into The “Phil Hogan must resign” thread so that pertinent posts about Mr Woulfe get lost in nearly 4000 posts. Readers now know that Mr Hogan has done the honourable thing and resigned, so they would not be searching that thread for opinions about our Supreme Court Judge. However, it might be in some people’s interest to lump this thread in there as well and bury it in the myriad of other posts. That’s a form a censorship. From your insightful posts on this thread to date, can I ask are you related to Mr Woulfe or what’s exactly the issue with you? Do you feel he should resign or brass neck it out?

    the words phil hogan and honourable do not belong in the same sentence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭ McMurphy


    robbiezero wrote: »
    He didn't organise it. If I went to a wedding and there was 81 there, not a hope would I be turning around to leave it, so I'm not going to judge him for not doing so.
    Its surely near time to be putting the pitch forks down, although the next "cause" has not arrived yet

    Grand so, as long as Supreme Judge Séamus Woulfe has the same morals and principles as robbiezero, an anonymous internet pseudonym, we can all gloss over his lack of judgement and carry-on with things like it never happened.

    /Thread


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭ mick087


    He has had time to resign
    Now he should be sacked.

    We carn't have such public figures going to a golf knees up during the current situation.
    Action should be take with all 81 attendees at the golf knees up.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Phishnet wrote: »
    From your insightful posts on this thread to date, can I ask are you related to Mr Woulfe or what’s exactly the issue with you?

    Is that some kind of passive aggressive insult :)
    Told you my issue, just don't see the need for a different thread on all 81 people present at the dinner.......


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    robbiezero wrote: »
    He didn't organise it. If I went to a wedding and there was 81 there, not a hope would I be turning around to leave it, so I'm not going to judge him for not doing so.
    Its surely near time to be putting the pitch forks down, although the next "cause" has not arrived yet

    robbiezero, can I ask you this simple question and I would ask you to answer same as truthfully as possible. “If you where the Attorney General that helped draft and then signed off on the Covid-19 regulations for Government before being made a Judge of the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the Irish State. Would you have sat down at the 82 seater Oireachtas Golf Society dinner function, where you already know that the max that you can have at a wedding is 50 persons. As a by the way you would have known that Dick Spring and Enda Kenny left after their Respective rounds of golf.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭ maestroamado


    I think there is an arguement to reform both political and Juduiciary in this country
    The politicians hide behind Judiciary when it suits them.
    They decided they wanted to reform Litigation some time ago and out a former judge in charge.
    Friends of the very people who initiate the proceedings in the first instance.
    The fact that Clifden showed what is going on in this country.
    His credibilit as a Judge is gone as they say "separation of powers"


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Is that some kind of passive aggressive insult :)
    Told you my issue, just don't see the need for a different thread on all 81 people present at the dinner.......

    That’s illuminating. But I don’t see separate threads on the Boards forum on the individual people present at GOLFGATE so your present concerns are truly unfounded. When there are over 30 such threads I might become a little concerned myself, but that is what moderators are for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,053 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    mick087 wrote: »
    He has had time to resign
    Now he should be sacked.

    We carn't have such public figures going to a golf knees up during the current situation.
    Action should be take with all 81 attendees at the golf knees up.

    a supreme court justice has never been sacked. they can only be sacked for "stated misbehaviour or incapacity". "stated behaviour" has never been defined but i would be very surprised if attending a golf dinner would qualify.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭ McMurphy


    paw patrol wrote: »
    he broke the covid regulations are they not laws? Laws he actually wrote when he was AG.

    Didn't Phil Hogan admit on interview that the likes of these guys think that the law does not apply to them.

    If true - and the fact Phil got hand waved on his merry way without fine or point's, then I worry for the Gardai supposedly impartiality and integrity in the state.

    Start at roughly 10 min in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    a supreme court justice has never been sacked. they can only be sacked for "stated misbehaviour or incapacity". "stated behaviour" has never been defined but i would be very surprised if attending a golf dinner would qualify.

    Let me explain, presently, a Supreme Court Judge cannot be sacked, but must resign on his own volition. Our great Oireachtas, have deemed fit, not to activate the particular section within the Judicial Council Act 2019 that would give Chief Justice Frank Clarke the power to sack any Judge within the Irish State for misconduct etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,734 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    Phishnet wrote: »
    No, your just completely asleep. This is, without doubt, the most important current affairs topic on this site at the present. The highest Judge in the land hasn’t the moral compass to do the right thing and step down, while A TD, a Senator, and an EU Commissioner have (EU Commissioner might of got a little nudge).

    If Mr Woulfe remains he will ultimately be making determinations on matters of great public importance and on Constitutional issues in the Supreme Court. If the man didn’t have the basic cop on not to be a an event where the Covid regulations where been flouted, then come on!

    I am sorry, but it is a long way from being the most important current affairs topic on this site.

    The state of the economy, the coronavirus challenges, the weakness of the opposition in the Dail are all much more important topics.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Didn't Phil Hogan admit on interview that the likes of these guys think that the law does not apply to them.

    If true - and the fact Phil got hand waved on his merry way without fine or point's, then I worry for the Gardai supposedly impartiality and integrity in the state.

    Start at roughly 10 min in.


    I don't know where he gets his idea that he wouldn't be stopped if they knew who he was!
    We know ministers & TDs are regularly stopped by Gardai, & even arrested!

    pity he didn't get a fine.

    He is however, a citizen & can be given a caution by a guard using his/her discretion, same as any other citizen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,053 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    Phishnet wrote: »
    Let me explain, presently, a Supreme Court Judge cannot be sacked, but must resign on his own volition. Our great Oireachtas, have deemed fit, not to activate the particular section within the Judicial Council Act 2019 that would give Chief Justice Frank Clarke the power to sack any Judge within the Irish State for misconduct etc.

    which of the following apply to what woulfe did?
    The function of the Judicial Conduct Committee shall be to promote and maintain high standards of conduct among judges, having regard to the principles of judicial conduct requiring judges to uphold and exemplify judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety (including the appearance of propriety), competence and diligence and to ensure equality of treatment to all persons before the courts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,815 ✭✭✭ robbiezero


    Phishnet wrote: »
    robbiezero, can I ask you this simple question and I would ask you to answer same as truthfully as possible. “If you where the Attorney General that helped draft and then signed off on the Covid-19 regulations for Government before being made a Judge of the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the Irish State. Would you have sat down at the 82 seater Oireachtas Golf Society dinner function, where you already know that the max that you can have at a wedding is 50 persons. As a by the way you would have known that Dick Spring and Enda Kenny left after their Respective rounds of golf.

    When did I know there would be 81 people at it?
    Did I know beforehand or was I tucking into my soup and suddenly copped that there were more than the allowed 50 at it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I am sorry, but it is a long way from being the most important current affairs topic on this site.

    The state of the economy, the coronavirus challenges, the weakness of the opposition in the Dail are all much more important topics.

    Absolutely, but they are not currently trending on the current affairs/IMHO subsection of boards. By all means post away on threads related to these matters and thank you for your valuable input into the subject matter of this thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭ McMurphy


    robbiezero wrote: »
    When did I know there would be 81 people at it?
    Did I know beforehand or was I tucking into my soup and suddenly copped that there were more than the allowed 50 at it?

    Robbie you are missing the point, he was the AG who literally had a hand in writing the rules - so not only is ignorance of the law no excuse, he cannot claim to be ignorant to begin with.

    Apart from that, there are numerous examples of people who knew dam well that the dinner was breaking covid19 regulations and refused to stay or attend.

    Notably Enda Kenny, Dick Spring and the Killilea family.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    robbiezero wrote: »
    When did I know there would be 81 people at it?
    Did I know beforehand or was I tucking into my soup and suddenly copped that there were more than the allowed 50 at it?

    You knew the name of the vast majority of people who where sitting down for dinner, as they where named on the table plan at the entrance to the dining area. A film of the table plan has already done the rounds on social media. You could do a quick calculation and realise you were going to sit down at a function with well in excess of 50 people, in breach of the Covid 19 regulations you helped draft for Government.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,815 ✭✭✭ robbiezero


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Robbie you are missing the point, he was the AG who literally had a hand in writing the rules - so not only is ignorance of the law no excuse, he cannot claim to be ignorant to begin with.

    Apart from that, there are numerous examples of people who knew dam well that the dinner was breaking covid19 regulations and refused to stay or attend.

    Notably Enda Kenny, Dick Spring and the Killilea family.


    The dinner itself was not breaking regulations. The number at it was.
    Maybe Enda K and co knew beforehand that the number was over the 50.
    Did Woulfe?
    For me it makes a difference when he knew that regulation were being broken.
    If he knew in advance, then no excuse.
    If he only realized it after his 2nd pint and in the middle of his soup, then I have some sympathy for his position.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭ Phishnet


    robbiezero wrote: »
    The dinner itself was not breaking regulations. The number at it was.
    Maybe Enda K and co knew beforehand that the number was over the 50.
    Did Woulfe?
    For me it makes a difference when he knew that regulation were being broken.
    If he knew in advance, then no excuse.
    If he only realized it after his 2nd pint and in the middle of his soup, then I have some sympathy for his position.

    Read my post above


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭ mick087


    a supreme court justice has never been sacked. they can only be sacked for "stated misbehaviour or incapacity". "stated behaviour" has never been defined but i would be very surprised if attending a golf dinner would qualify.


    More accountability is required to its citizens.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,815 ✭✭✭ robbiezero


    Phishnet wrote: »
    You knew the name of the vast majority of people who where sitting down for dinner, as they where named on the table plan at the entrance to the dining area. A film of the table plan has already done the rounds on social media. You could do a quick calculation and realise you were going to sit down at a function with well in excess of 50 people, in breach of the Covid 19 regulations you helped draft for Government.

    Its often happened me at a wedding that someone has just said "you are at our table Robbie" and I have never even looked at the table plan on entry to the dining room.


Advertisement