General Irish politics discussion thread

The offence is immaterial.

If convicted a Judge cannot hold office with any integrity.

I see Leo has been quoted as a believer in free speech but.......there has to be limits which I assume Helen and himself will decide how free our speech will be.

Sooner we get rid of these clowns the better GA can't come soon enough.

This country has really descended in the last 2 years.

Nobody said she should take action without legal advice.

What I said was she should know and have a pre-ordained legally sound path to follow already mapped out if a judge is convicted of any offence.

Emphatically state that there is no place in the judiciary for a convicted judge.

Or the government response to a judge being convicted. What he did has nothing to do with the government.

Your SF obsession aside here, the government has had 100 years to make clear what should happen a convicted judge.

It should be automatic on conviction.

Is the AG going to give the Minister a menu of options?

That is untenable under any government, SF or otherwise.

I wonder if letting the Judge continue in his job after his release is one of the options.

Everyone needs a little lieutenant. There is the problem of the, separation of powers. Should it be a Court of Judges, in some form, decide on such issues? Is there a lacuna, where new legislation may be required to plug the gap? The US for example, has a problem at present in that it can't remove any errant Supreme Court Judge. Their is no mechanism in the law. Not sure about the UK.

Are you saying she is consulting the AJ on the integrity of the court case that convicted him?

If you look you will see a clear path laid out in the constitution.

Did you not know Cavan County Council is a hotbed of foreign policy expertise, Ireland's very own

No problem with her consulting whoever, but why not say the government would seek to sack this convicted judge by following the route laid out in the constitution? The government that wants a 'zero tolerance' environment.

Strange I thought.

The government can bring a motion before the Dáil - to begin the process.

The question remains so, why do they need the advice of the AG to take a path laid out in the Constitution and why would the MoJ not say that was their intention.

IMO it was the time for a strong unambiguous statement, not a kick to touch.

I don't see the problem with laying out what the governments intentions are. She would have been fully legally compliant mapping out what is in the constitution.