Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they can appeal this decision to the court of appeal but that is it

I'm wondering if there is a time limit within which the petitioners MUST make an appeal to have Justice Kelly's ruling overturned or will this drag on for months as a preventive measure by the petitioners to block Michael D signing the legislative changes into law before the presidential election.

EDIT. The courts service provide these as the sitting sessions for the Court of Appeal.
2018
Hilary sittings: 11 January - 23 March
Easter sittings: 9 April - 17 May
Trinity sittings: 30 May - 31 July
Michaelmas sittings: 1 October - 21 December

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm wondering if there is a time limit within which the petitioners MUST make an appeal to have Justice Kelly's ruling overturned or will this drag on for months as a preventive measure by the petitioners to block Michael D signing the legislative changes into law before the presidential election.

They have a week

Counsel for Byrne indicated they would appeal the matter, and Mr Justice Kelly agreed to allow a week for the matter to be heard in the Court of Appeal after which, if these appeals fail, he will direct that the referendum returning officer be informed that these bids to challenge the results have failed.

Calina

7 days for Charles Byrne. so hearing next week. Not sure when judgment.

seamus

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm wondering if there is a time limit within which the petitioners MUST make an appeal to have Justice Kelly's ruling overturned or will this drag on for months as a preventive measure by the petitioners to block Michael D signing the legislative changes into law before the presidential election.

EDIT. The courts service provide these as the sitting sessions for the Court of Appeal.
2018
Hilary sittings: 11 January - 23 March
Easter sittings: 9 April - 17 May
Trinity sittings: 30 May - 31 July
Michaelmas sittings: 1 October - 21 December

They have to appeal within the next seven days. The court will sit on Friday, the judge will ask if they are lodging an appeal, they will say they are, so the judge will schedule a new date for the appeal.

So yes, it could drag on for a couple of months.

Although Mr. Byrne is asking the state to pay his legal costs, and that's being heard on Tuesday. In the likely event that the court refuses costs, he'll probably drop out, leaving just the ultra-crazy on her own.

seamus wrote: »

They have to appeal within the next seven days. The court will sit on Friday, the judge will ask if they are lodging an appeal, they will say they are, so the judge will schedule a new date for the appeal.

So yes, it could drag on for a couple of months.

Although Mr. Byrne is asking the state to pay his legal costs, and that's being heard on Tuesday. In the likely event that the court refuses costs, he'll probably drop out, leaving just the ultra-crazy on her own.

Mr Byrne might be out of luck on Tuesday

On Byrne’s complaints about the Referendum Commission leaflets issued to all households, for example, Mr Justice Kelly said: “I am of the view that the complaints made about it are without substance or foundation.”

uptherebels

seamus wrote: »

They have to appeal within the next seven days. The court will sit on Friday, the judge will ask if they are lodging an appeal, they will say they are, so the judge will schedule a new date for the appeal.

So yes, it could drag on for a couple of months.

Although Mr. Byrne is asking the state to pay his legal costs, and that's being heard on Tuesday. In the likely event that the court refuses costs, he'll probably drop out, leaving just the ultra-crazy on her own.

I took from the article that the appeal would be heard in court in a week , or did I pick that up wrong

Under His Eye

Indeed you have.

They have until next Friday to serve notice of an appeal.

Once that is done it goes to the Court of Appeal for hearing. That hearing will be October by the earlist. Meanwhile The President cannot sign the bill into law.

I'm assuming that, as I can't find anything to the contrary, that it's a section of the courts service which decides when a case is sent to a court to hear it, to ensure the courts run reasonably in hearing cases. If a civil case is seen as being of exceptional public importance by a high court judge [WHICH DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE] can he refer it to the appeal court for it to decide to sit and hear the case outside the usual 4 sitting sessions?

What's to stop the court of appeal decide for itself when it can sit to hear a case if it thinks the case merits an ASAP hearing? Is there something in legislation barring it from doing so?

I see that Mr Justice Kelly, as president of the high court, is an ex officio member of the appeal court but assume that he will recuse himself from any sitting of the appeal court in this matter. The President of the supreme court, along with 11 other judges, is on the appeal court judges list.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm assuming that, as I can't find anything to the contrary, that it's a section of the courts service which decides when a case is sent to a court to hear it, to ensure the courts run reasonably in hearing cases. If a civil case is seen as being of exceptional public importance by a high court judge [WHICH DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE] can he refer it to the appeal court for it to decide to sit and hear the case outside the usual 4 sitting sessions?

What's to stop the court of appeal decide for itself when it can sit to hear a case if it thinks the case merits an ASAP hearing? Is there something in legislation barring it from doing so?

I see that Mr Justice Kelly, as president of the high court, is an ex officio member of the appeal court but assume that he will recuse himself from any sitting of the appeal court in this matter. The President of the supreme court, along with 11 other judges, is on the appeal court judges list.

I have to disagree. While frivolous these cases are holding up important legislation so need to be heard as soon as possible. The courts service are cognisant of this.

Under His Eye

It will get an early date at the Court of Appeal. No doubts there. It is a matter of great public importance.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have to disagree. While frivolous these cases are holding up important legislation so need to be heard as soon as possible. The courts service are cognisant of this.

But, as I've asked, can the appeal hearing be heard between this present sitting session ending on 31 July and the next session some months away?
Note editing to include the word BETWEEN. Does legislation governing the courts prevent a sitting between the sessions?

aloyisious wrote: »

But, as I've asked, can the appeal hearing be heard between this present sitting session ending on 31 July and the next session some months away?
Note editing to include the word BETWEEN. Does legislation governing the courts prevent a sitting between the sessions?

if it is appealed they will hear it straight away. any appeal will be over very quickly as they can only made on points of law.

Loafing Oaf

http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/07/20/what-irelands-future-after-repealing-its-ban-abortion

Interesting feature on the post-referendum landscape in the Jesuit magazine America, mainly based on interviews with 'mainstream conservatives' like David Quinn and Mary Kenny. A lot of vague talk about the pro-life movement not giving up hope, but again very little in the way of practical suggestions about what to do going forward.

Archbishop Martin remains convinced that Ireland’s pro-life community will be able to influence the national dialogue about the enacting legislation that will follow the referendum.

But not much indication of how they might do this...

Hotblack Desiato

They should be forced to lodge the full costs in court before this sort of flimsy appeal is allowed to be heard.

uptherebels

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/07/20/what-irelands-future-after-repealing-its-ban-abortion

Interesting feature on the post-referendum landscape in the Jesuit magazine America, mainly based on interviews with 'mainstream conservatives' like David Quinn and Mary Kenny. A lot of vague talk about the pro-life movement not giving up hope, but again very little in the way of practical suggestions about what to do going forward.

But not much indication of how they might do this...

They already tried to influence the national dialogue and got steam rolled.
Just more of the church clutching at straws trying to hype it's waining significance in Irish society

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They should be forced to lodge the full costs in court before this sort of flimsy appeal is allowed to be heard.

they shouldn't no . it has the potential to make the courts inaccessible and remove one's right to fair justice. trying to do this especially because someone takes a case one doesn't agree with is IMO dangerous for democracy. the current way works.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

they shouldn't no . it has the potential to make the courts inaccessible and remove one's right to fair justice. trying to do this especially because someone takes a case one doesn't agree with is IMO dangerous for democracy. the current way works.

But they are abusing the system. They know well they have no case. Everyone could see that before the ruling, yourself included.

They are just dishonestly abusing the system to deny people the right to an abortion.

Speaking of not having a case:
Do you believe that abortion is murder?
Why did you claim that you never said that it was?

No one can have a proper discussion with you until you clear this up.

end of the road wrote: »

very unlikely to happen, and rightly so. they were entitled to bring the cases, and have said cases judged to be valid or not.
someone not agreeing with a case or the people bringing that case rightly does not prevent people using the courts to receive their right to fair justice whatever the outcome.

Please familiarise yourself with the concept of a vexatious litigant. Access to the courts for any spurious purpose is not open-ended.

We're talking, in one of these cases, about a person that's previously held up ratification of a referendum result on spurious grounds for getting on for three years, and declared the holdup itself to be a successful outcome. Their "entitlement" to filibuster without merit expired then and there, by any reasonable criterion.

King Mob wrote: »

But they are abusing the system. They know well they have no case. Everyone could see that before the ruling, yourself included.

They are just dishonestly abusing the system to deny people the right to an abortion.

or they took the case in good faith because they believed there were issues. this is a non-issue. they took the case, the courts decided there was no case, job done, the system works.
they are not denying people the right to an abortion.

Bredabe wrote: »

Can they just keep appealing to each new decision against their cases?

Roughly speaking, whenever you appeal it has to go to a "higher" court. So eventually, you'll either be successful, be denied leave to appeal, or end up in the Supreme Court. (Or possibly the European courts, but I don't think that would normally hold up the operation of the national legal system.)

So no, you can't just keep appealing forever. It just sometimes seems that way.

end of the road wrote: »

or they took the case in good faith because they believed there were issues.

Joanna Jordan wrote:

We managed to delay the president from signing the Children’s Referendum into law for over two and half years

A self-confessed bad-faith litigant.

they are not denying people the right to an abortion.

Justice delayed, etc.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Please familiarise yourself with the concept of a vexatious litigant. Access to the courts for any spurious purpose is not open-ended.

We're talking, in one of these cases, about a person that's previously held up ratification of a referendum result on spurious grounds for getting on for three years, and declared the holdup itself to be a successful outcome. Their "entitlement" to filibuster without merit expired then and there, by any reasonable criterion.

they were entitled to take the case and have it heard on their own merrits and judged to be either valid or invalid. as i said, the current system works well and is fair to democracy.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/07/20/what-irelands-future-after-repealing-its-ban-abortion

Interesting feature on the post-referendum landscape in the Jesuit magazine America, mainly based on interviews with 'mainstream conservatives' like David Quinn and Mary Kenny. A lot of vague talk about the pro-life movement not giving up hope, but again very little in the way of practical suggestions about what to do going forward.

But not much indication of how they might do this...

Good article to read. I'm surprised [or maybe shouldn't be] that David Quinn is broadly hinting that the Pro-life polls taken on the street/at doorways were faulty because those responding were being nice - read dishonest - to the Pro-life pollsters disguising how large the vote would really be against the Pro-Life campaign. Mary Kenny made some good points but I reckon she was wrong where she thinks the church - or the bishops, as Archbishop Martin understands some blame-words to mean - should have been overtly & publicly involved. I reckon that the church was right in its thinking that that would have been a counter-productive move given how there has been a very large populace swing against faith in the church because of its dishonesty and a subsequent disbelief in anything spoken or written coming from the church spokespersons - anger on the streets as it were. This is just my reading on some of the article points.

end of the road wrote: »

they were entitled to take the case and have it heard on their own merrits and judged to be either valid or invalid. as i said, the current system works well and is fair to democracy.

You can keep saying it all you like, it's still nonsense. Deliberate multi-year delay of a democratic result on frivolous grounds is an abuse of the legal process. The rest of us, to use you incessant phrase, "are entitled" to curtail the activities of those demonstrated to be perpetrating the abuse.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

or they took the case in good faith because they believed there were issues. this is a non-issue. they took the case, the courts decided there was no case, job done, the system works.
they are not denying people the right to an abortion.

Again, evidence is against you in this regard, as alaimacerc points out.

And still, the fact remains that it was obvious to everyone they had no case.
And again, as alaimacerc points out, at least one of them specifically stated that their intention was to delay. That is denying people their rights.

And again, you are being a massive hypocrite.
You cannot talk about what is and isn't good faith given your refusal to clarify your stance and explain your deceptive comments.

Do you believe abortion is murder?
Why did you say that you never claimed it was?

end of the road wrote: »

or they took the case in good faith because they believed there were issues. this is a non-issue. they took the case, the courts decided there was no case, job done, the system works.
they are not denying people the right to an abortion.

As in here in Ireland, and not abroad, by delaying at least the signing into law the referendum vote result and subsequent Govt legislation being enacted through Leinster House?

aloyisious wrote: »

I reckon that the church was right in its thinking that that would have been a counter-productive move given how there has been a very large populace swing against faith in the church because of its dishonesty and a subsequent disbelief in anything spoken or written coming from the church spokespersons - anger on the streets as it were.

The church seems to have been happy for quite a while to use the likes of "Iona" as an ablative shield. They're not officially speaking for the hierarchy, so in theory they don't have the baggage of past poor behaviour of clerics. Conversely, despite their (frankly, laughable) possession of charity status, they have precisely zilch pastoral responsibility or grassroots accountability, so they can be as angry, shrill, and shouty as they like, in a way that might be thought to be a bad look on a bishop. (Doesn't stop Kevin Doran or The Fonz, I appreciate.)

But I think they might have largely evaporated at this stage.

aloyisious wrote: »

As in here in Ireland, and not abroad, by delaying at least the signing into law the referendum vote result and subsequent Govt legislation being enacted through Leinster House?

yes that's correct, we are talking about here. however i don't believe any rights are being denied. the result is going to be signed into law at some stage, and people have a right to challenge it as has been done via these failed cases before it would be signed in . so everyone's rights have actually been upheld here IMO.