nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

John Waters & Gemma O'Doherty to challenge lockdown in the high Court

Long_Wave

Now I know they are going to get a lot of ridicule for this but the lockdown is almost certainly unconstitutional so I wish them luck. https://mobile.twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1250421661062459399

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MrMusician18

hippo300 wrote: »

You appear to share intellectual abilities to construct arguments with the judge.

I know you intended it as one, but that's not actually an insult...

um7y1h83ge06nx

Well it didn't knock her back too much. She's been on Twitter the last 2 or 3 hours going on about the supposed, in her mind, link between autism and vaccines.

Good chance they will make a legal challenge against any future Covid-19 vaccine being licenced for use here.

If I said what I thought about these two I'd definitely be getting a red card!

hippo300

whippet wrote: »

Incorrect .. he dismissed their medical and scientific claims as they were not backed up by any facts ... and they offered no back up which was the grounds to dismiss

Incorrect - read his words. He refers to their rhetoric. Rhetoric is what made law in the first place. Constitution is not based on science but on ethic and philosophy. There should be no need for scientific arguments at all - the question is what government can do, there cannot be a justification "well, maybe unconstitutional, but for greater good".

However talking about science - what science government applied by allowing tourists from italy and uk until very last days, or when they said that there is no need to limit visits to care homes? What does science say about closing beaches, what is the infection risk there? Why does ordinary citizen needs to obtain PHD to challenge government, while government doesn't release scientific data before making decision?

Harry Palmr

hippo300 wrote: »

You appear to share intellectual abilities to construct arguments with the judge.

Registered Sept 2016 and now you strike! Goodness me, talk about deep cover.

VinLieger

hippo300 wrote: »

Judge should be demoted for this. He has obligation to the law, not to scientific qualifications or expertise. You don;t need to be medical expert to be able to challenge any law that is restricting your constitutional freedoms. Your standing is being citizen of Ireland, not a medical degree.

It's said how well this judicial nonsense is received on this forum.

I won't even start how many times during this pandemic expert changed their opinions (most recently schools appear to be safe, previously face masks, no expert was there to prevent pandemic or limit the damage before it was very late). What matters is that opinionated judge makes it impossible to challenge legislation, because "they're not experts".

EDIT: If the law affects me, I have standing. If the law affects my constitutional freedoms, there is no justification for what the judge did.

LOL you completely misquoted the judge selectively editing the full paragraph, how gemma-esque of you.

Heres the full quote, notice how it is completely different and not at all what you claim he is saying.

https://imgur.com/aT6wchz

hippo300

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I know you intended it as one, but that's not actually an insult...

Why would you think that was attempted insult? You don't like what you said?

hippo300

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL you completely misquoted the judge selectively editing the full paragraph, how gemma-esque of you.

Heres the full quote, notice how it is completely diffwerent and not at all what you claim he is saying.

Was that their only argument?

MrMusician18

hippo300 wrote: »

Incorrect - read his words. He refers to their rhetoric. Rhetoric is what made law in the first place. Constitution is not based on science but on ethic and philosophy. There should be no need for scientific arguments at all - the question is what government can do, there cannot be a justification "well, maybe unconstitutional, but for greater good".

However talking about science - what science government applied by allowing tourists from italy and uk until very last days, or when they said that there is no need to limit visits to care homes? What does science say about closing beaches, what is the infection risk there? Why does ordinary citizen needs to obtain PHD to challenge government, while government doesn't release scientific data before making decision?

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I'm fairly sure the common good features in both the constitution and subsequent judgements.

sydthebeat

hippo300 wrote: »

Judge should be demoted for this. He has obligation to the law, not to scientific qualifications or expertise. You don;t need to be medical expert to be able to challenge any law that is restricting your constitutional freedoms. Your standing is being citizen of Ireland, not a medical degree.

It's said how well this judicial nonsense is received on this forum.

I won't even start how many times during this pandemic expert changed their opinions (most recently schools appear to be safe, previously face masks, no expert was there to prevent pandemic or limit the damage before it was very late). What matters is that opinionated judge makes it impossible to challenge legislation, because "they're not experts".

EDIT: If the law affects me, I have standing. If the law affects my constitutional freedoms, there is no justification for what the judge did.

:D:D:D:D

youre a tonic !!!! thanks for the laugh

VinLieger

hippo300 wrote: »

Was that their only argument?

Im simply replying regarding the problem you had with the judge, i'm showing you why your wrong and pointing out what you quoted was selectively edited and therefore deliberately disingenuous to help support your opinion.

Why are you shifting the goal posts?

extra gravy

hippo300 wrote: »

Was that their only argument?

Are you criticising the judge without having read the judgement?

hippo300

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I'm fault sure the common good features in both the constitution and subsequent judgements.

It actually doesn't. Specifically because government can justify anything with "common good" and constitution is a highest level guarantee for your freedoms to limit what government can do. Additionally, one article of constitution doesn't restrict another article unless specifically stated in constitution i.e. "common good" cannot mean restricting your freedoms unless this is clearly stated in the constitution.

hippo300

extra gravy wrote: »

Are you criticising the judge without having read the judgement?

Right. It wasn't their only argument. Better now?

hippo300

VinLieger wrote: »

Im simply replying regarding the problem you had with the judge, i'm showing you why your wrong and pointing out what you quoted was selectively edited and therefore deliberately disingenuous to help support your opinion.

Why are you shifting the goal posts?

I diodn;t edit it - the journal did - I took full quote from them https://www.thejournal.ie/gemma-judicial-review-5097400-May2020/ Plus - i don;t shift anything. I justified my position in the first post. Judge cannot deprive any citizen of Ireland from challenging law restricting constitutional freedoms. His judgement was not about what is constitutional - he prevented that judgement for take place by denying judicial review. You may like to live in state where judge says that you are not expert therefore you have no rights - I don't.

blueythebear

hippo300 wrote: »

Additionally, one article of constitution doesn't restrict another article unless specifically stated in constitution i.e. "common good" cannot mean restricting your freedoms unless this is clearly stated in the constitution.

This is incorrect. The courts regularly engage in a balancing act between competing constitutional rights .

extra gravy

hippo300 wrote: »

I diodn;t edit it - the journal did - I took full quote from them https://www.thejournal.ie/gemma-judicial-review-5097400-May2020/ Plus - i don;t shift anything. I justified my position in the first post. Judge cannot deprive any citizen of Ireland from challenging law restricting constitutional freedoms. His judgement was not about what is constitutional - he prevented that judgement for take place by denying judicial review. You may like to live in state where judge says that you are not expert therefore you have no rights - I don't.

Read the judgement, you might learn something.

Arghus

The transcript is a pretty hilarious read.

"Not only that Mr. Waters, every single word we speak in this courtroom is being recorded on the digital audio recording system..."

Capt'n Midnight

So yeah, what will the costs be ?

VinLieger

hippo300 wrote: »

I diodn;t edit it - the journal did - I took full quote from them https://www.thejournal.ie/gemma-judicial-review-5097400-May2020/ Plus - i don;t shift anything. I justified my position in the first post. Judge cannot deprive any citizen of Ireland from challenging law restricting constitutional freedoms. His judgement was not about what is constitutional - he prevented that judgement for take place by denying judicial review. You may like to live in state where judge says that you are not expert therefore you have no rights - I don't.

But its not the full quote, you saw something you liked and jumped on it cus it agreed with your opinion and now that youve been shown what you based your argument on is wrong you are refusing to admit that and are instead shifting the goal posts.

Read the full judgement and hearing transcript, they arent hard to find, and get back to us, also maybe learn a bit about how evidence and expert opinion works which you dont seem to understand either.

Is there any chance you consider yourself a freeman of the land? Because that would explain a lot about your apparent legal ignorance.

Realt Dearg Sec

Arghus wrote: »

The transcript is a pretty hilarious read.

It always promised to be hilarious from the moment they said they'd both represent themselves and that they'd be presenting expert medical opinion on the issue. It was the one thing that was always going to make it worthwhile. And boy did they deliver.

bennyl10

hippo300 wrote: »

Judge should be demoted for this. He has obligation to the law, not to scientific qualifications or expertise. You don;t need to be medical expert to be able to challenge any law that is restricting your constitutional freedoms. Your standing is being citizen of Ireland, not a medical degree.

It's said how well this judicial nonsense is received on this forum.

I won't even start how many times during this pandemic expert changed their opinions (most recently schools appear to be safe, previously face masks, no expert was there to prevent pandemic or limit the damage before it was very late). What matters is that opinionated judge makes it impossible to challenge legislation, because "they're not experts".

EDIT: If the law affects me, I have standing. If the law affects my constitutional freedoms, there is no justification for what the judge did.

Have you read the rest of the judgment? This is one comment, he dismantles their argument, completely and throughly in the remainder of the document.

Judicial nonsense? The judge is fully entitled to give his view in a ruling. And he gives his opinion.

Realt Dearg Sec

VinLieger wrote: »

Is there any chance you consider yourself a freeman of the land?

Asking the real questions here. He certainly has all the hallmarks. The incoherent gibberish about the constitution presented with total self assurance is an obvious tell.

[Deleted User]

hippo300 wrote: »

I won't even start how many times during this pandemic expert changed their opinions (most recently schools appear to be safe, previously face masks, no expert was there to prevent pandemic or limit the damage before it was very late).

That's how expert research works. When new evidence emerges, opinions change.

Seth Brundle

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So yeah, what will the costs be ?

Whatever they end up at, they've saved themselves a small fortune by not employing competent legal representation.

Boggles

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Whatever they end up at, they've saved themselves a small fortune by not employing competent legal representation.

[Deleted User]

walshb wrote: »

Ok, so how many appeals can we expect from these two charlatans?

Depends on if they can find something else to complain about in the mean time, it's back to vaccines at the minute for gems, and if costs are awarded against them how much they can con out of the gullible.

Kermit.de.frog

Gemma can put this slogan on her next election posters...

"Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, rhetoric and bogus, absurd and offensive"

redarmy

Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters to face a bill of between €50,000 and €75,000 in legal costs following their failed judicial review case. Reporting shortly on
@drivetimerte

Creol1

I found the judgment surprising reading. I expected that the main reason for refusing leave to bring the case would be that the wrong procedure (Judicial Review) was adopted, as this certainly was the case. Judicial Review is essentially the procedure for the High Court to quash decisions of lower courts or other quasi-judicial bodies, not Acts of the Oireachtas.

However, the Court held that this wasn't necessarily a barrier because the proceedings could be converted, but refused leave to bring the case on the basis that it wasn't arguable. I think it correct to say that there isn't an arguable case as far as their claims about the legitimacy of the Dáil's quorum, etc, were concerned, because the Constitution is very clear about the separation of powers, but I think the finding that there was no arguable case regarding the proportionality of the restrictions is more vulnerable to being overturned in the Court of Appeal.

This could all have been avoided if Michael D had referred the legislation to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. It would have resulted in a slight delay but I have no doubt it would have been upheld and it would have been immune from any possible legal challenge.

swampy353

Creol1 wrote: »

I found the judgment surprising reading. I expected that the main reason for refusing leave to bring the case would be that the wrong procedure (Judicial Review) was adopted, as this certainly was the case. Judicial Review is essentially the procedure for the High Court to quash decisions of lower courts or other quasi-judicial bodies, not Acts of the Oireachtas.

However, the Court held that this wasn't necessarily a barrier because the proceedings could be converted, but refused leave to bring the case on the basis that it wasn't arguable. I think it correct to say that there isn't an arguable case as far as their claims about the legitimacy of the Dáil's quorum, etc, were concerned, because the Constitution is very clear about the separation of powers, but I think the finding that there was no arguable case regarding the proportionality of the restrictions is more vulnerable to being overturned in the Court of Appeal.

This could all have been avoided if Michael D had referred the legislation to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. It would have resulted in a slight delay but I have no doubt it would have been upheld and it would have been immune from any possible legal challenge.

My reading of the transcripts (not a legal expert by any stretch);
As you said not refused on procedural grounds but on the lack of substance within their argument.

The transcripts show that GO'D & JW made several arguments which we all unsubstantiated. GO'Ds behaviour in court came across as obnoxious (there were so many times where she was effectively told to shut up).

In terms of proportionality, the state laid out the case i.e. highly contagious etc and GO'D & JW effectively came back with, "its not" without backing up with any evidence apart from their say so. Also a lot of their assertions in relation to proportionality were based on figures from mid March (90 cases, 1 fatality) not current figures, obviously the situation has moved on from there.

From what I can see, GO'D was lucky to not be turfed out on her ear with the lack of respect that she showed the court and judge. She was her usual charming self "Well, first of all I say that is an outrageous waste of public money" & "But I am asking you that you are their servants, they are your masters, and that you allow them access to this court, Judge"