Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
Comments
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »It's been clarified time and time again that JAAB do not 'recommend' - they merely clarify that the applicant has ticked the required boxes in terms of qualification, experience etc. JAAB shortlist the applicants who are not sitting judges - they do not decide who should be appointed.
Who said they did?
Their chosen applicant was Seamus Woulfe, The minister picked him and brought it to cabinet and he was ratified.
No one said anything other than that.
Now if you want to argue after that about whether cabinet or govt should be doing that job that's fine, but as of now, and then, that's their remit.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »Who said they did?
Their chosen applicant was Seamus Woulfe, The minister picked him and brought it to cabinet and he was ratified.
No one said anything other than that.
Now if you want to argue after that about whether cabinet or govt should be doing that job that's fine, but as of now, and then, that's their remit.
No, their chosen applicant was not Woulf - They said Woulf met the criteria to be considered as a candidate alongside any applicants from within the sitting judiciary.
If things worked the way you are claiming a non-judicial applicant would always take preference over a judicial applicant simply by coming through the JAAB process.
That's nonsense even in an appointment system that needs urgent reform.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »No, their chosen applicant was not Woulf - They said Woulf met the criteria to be considered as a candidate alongside any applicants from within the sitting judiciary.
If things worked the way you are claiming a non-judicial applicant would always take preference over a judicial applicant simply by coming through the JAAB process.
That's nonsense even in an appointment system that needs urgent reform.
Again, he was they're only chosen applicant. The minister decided he was the best applicant. She considered alll applicants.
As I said if you want to talk reform that's OK, but the system currently in place was used.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »They said he was suitable so, they only said that of him and I'm sure they had other candidates apply as well so I imagine that's a reccomendation in any man's language.
How sure are you that they had other candidates? Non-judicial applicants for the position of supreme court judge is a pretty niche market I would imagine.
Even if they did have other candidates and JAAB said only he was suitable, this still wouldn't be a recommendation for a job. Just as Garda vetting of teachers isn't a recommendation for a job, it simply means that there is nothing in their criminal history that rules them out.
Even if we assume that JAAB had other applicants and found only Woulfe to be suitable, that would simply mean that the other candidates had something that ruled them out.
The acid test of whether JAAB actually provides recommendations would be where they have more than one candidate who would be suitable* and they recommend one candidate over the other. If it is the case where there are two suitable candidates, both names are put passed to the MoJ as being suitable, then JAAB don't make recommendations. AFAIA the latter is the what JAAB actually does.
* Two suitable candidates would be the case where, in the absence of the other candidate, either candidate would be put forward.0 -
You would call it vetting, not a recommendation.Bishop of hope wrote: »Doesn't matter and it's just gamesmanship as to one's word against the other on that.
If saying someone is suitable, and only saying it of him, isn't a reccomendation then what would you call it?
If only one teacher applies for a job in a rural school and the Garda vetting service says that they are suitable to work with kids, that isn't a recommendation to the school to hire them.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »Again, he was they're only chosen applicant. The minister decided he was the best applicant. She considered alll applicants.
As I said if you want to talk reform that's OK, but the system currently in place was used.
He was the only application shortlisted by JAAB - he was far from being the only applicant.
For the last time the fact that he was the only applicate whose name was put forward by JAAB mean he was the only person who applied via JAAB who fit the criteria to be put forward as a candidate [edit to add - he may or may not have been the only person to apply this way]. This does not mean he was 'chosen' or 'recommended' - it means he was short-listed.
The other applicants already met the criteria to be members of the judiciary - we know this as they are sitting judges.
Selected by a Minister who stated she used her own criteria so how can it be the system that is 'currently in place' unless 'the system that is currently in place' = whatever the Minister of Justice decides at the time based on their own individual selection process known only to themselves and not quantifiable by any objective standards.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »Again, he was they're only chosen applicant. The minister decided he was the best applicant. She considered alll applicants.
As I said if you want to talk reform that's OK, but the system currently in place was used.
They don't choose an applicant. They vet all applicants for suitability. If there were more than one suitable candidate then they would have put forward more than one name; they would not have chosen Woulfe over another suitable candidate, because that is not what they do.
When teachers get vetted by the Gardai for a job application, the results of the Garda vetting process aren't an endorsement of the candidate, even when only one candidate is deemed suitable. It isn't a recommendation by the Gardai that the school should hire the teacher.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »He was the only application shortlisted by JAAB - he was far from being the only applicant.
For the last time the fact that he was the only applicate whose name was put forward by JAAB mean he was the only person who applied via JAAB who fit the criteria to be put forward as a candidate [edit to add - he may or may not have been the only person to apply this way]. This does not mean he was 'chosen' or 'recommended' - it means he was short-listed.
The other applicants already met the criteria to be members of the judiciary - we know this as they are sitting judges.
Selected by a Minister who stated she used her own criteria so how can it be the system that is 'currently in place' unless 'the system that is currently in place' = whatever the Minister of Justice decides at the time based on their own individual selection process known only to themselves and not quantifiable by any objective standards.
It's in her remit as it stands to do that, she brought his name to cabinet and he was, approved.
As I said that's the system in place.
Does it need reforming, probably yes.
But you'd have to be clear as to what process would be used and what guarantees no bias is availed of even then.
Who in the country hasn't a, stake in the judicial process?
It's hard to find absolute neutrality in any situation and in any process for judicial appointments.
The current political process on this needs to move on from here with a clear road map of how supreme Court judges can be appointed in a non bias way if it is believed that politics is biased on judicial appointments and their particular politics.
Foreign judges, committees, what?
There is no body in Ireland that can't be linked in one way or another to politics.
The whole argument brought forward by the opposition is politically biased in itself and a mere point scoring exercise.0 -
They don't choose an applicant. They vet all applicants for suitability. If there were more than one suitable candidate then they would have put forward more than one name; they would not have chosen Woulfe over another suitable candidate, because that is not what they do.
When teachers get vetted by the Gardai for a job application, the results of the Garda vetting process aren't an endorsement of the candidate, even when only one candidate is deemed suitable. It isn't a recommendation by the Gardai that the school should hire the teacher.
The Garda aren't teachers, the jaab is a judicial body. No comparison there.0 -
Advertisement
-
The issue is why she didn't bring ALL the names to the coalition party leaders, before submitting only Woulfe's name to cabinet.Bishop of hope wrote: »It's in her remit as it stands to do that, she brought his name to cabinet and he was, approved.
The comparison is in the nature of the process, not those who carry it out. In both cases it is a vetting process, not a process of recommendation.Bishop of hope wrote: »The Garda aren't teachers, the jaab is a judicial body. No comparison there.
Of course, the Gardai could make a recommendation to the schools, if they so choose; that they are not teachers does not preclude this. The point is that a vetting process is not a process of recommendation.
Again, if JAAB are obliged to put forward all names of those non-judicial applicants, who would be suitable, then theirs is not a recommendation. This is true even when only one candidate is deemed to be suitable.
Even if JAAB did make recommendations, theirs would only be a recommendation from the non-judicial pool of applicants and could not be taken as a recommendation over and above other applicants, who had not gone through the JAAB vetting process.
In which case McEntee should have brought ALL the names to the coalition party leaders BEFORE submitting a name to cabinet.0 -
The issue is why she didn't bring ALL the names to the coalition party leaders, before submitting only Woulfe's name to cabinet.
Exactly - what was the Minister's criteria which led her to decide not one of the sitting judges who were applicants was suitable to have their name brought before Cabinet alongside the applicant who has no judicial experience.
Why did the Minister find a number of serving members of the Judiciary unsuitable? What led her to this decision whereby she adjudged, all by herself, sitting judges to be unsuitable to be justices of the Supreme Court?0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Exactly - what was the Minister's criteria which led her to decide not one of the sitting judges who were applicants was suitable to have their name brought before Cabinet alongside the applicant who has no judicial experience.
Why did the Minister find a number of serving members of the Judiciary unsuitable? What led her to this decision whereby she adjudged, all by herself, sitting judges to be unsuitable to be justices of the Supreme Court?
But they could and probably were all suitable, as in many jobs, but 1 is picked.
She decided on Woulfe as the jaab found him suitable.
What are you all looking for, an open to the public process where all the candidates are named?
That might be ideal but then it's open to privacy rights on the individuals who failed to gain the promotion.
She followed a due process and selected 1 candidate, did nothing wrong in any shape or form.
A petty time wasting exercise again by the opposition because they have nothing else to criticise govt for as things are going well enough otherwise.0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »But they could and probably were all suitable, as in many jobs, but 1 is picked.
She decided on Woulfe as the jaab found him suitable.
What are you all looking for, an open to the public process where all the candidates are named?
That might be ideal but then it's open to privacy rights on the individuals who failed to gain the promotion.
She followed a due process and selected 1 candidate, did nothing wrong in any shape or form.
A petty time wasting exercise again by the opposition because they have nothing else to criticise govt for as things are going well enough otherwise.
You are persisting with this nonsense.
JAAB does not decide who is to get the job, JAAB merely confirms if an applicant meets the conditions to be considered to get the job.
Throw terms like 'due process' around all you like but the Minister made it clear she used her own criteria which is hardly 'due process'. Did she think it was a job in Centra she was awarding?
I'm delighted you think things are going well - would that I could ignore crises after crises all of them self made.0 -
You're making a number of unfounded assumptions here that:Bishop of hope wrote: »But they could and probably were all suitable, as in many jobs, but 1 is picked.
1) there was more than one applicant through JAAB.
2) there was more than one suitable applicant through JAAB.
3) JAAB chose the best candidate form amongst those applicants.
Assumption #3 is the key assumption. For McEntee's justification to have any credibility whatsoever, it would indeed require that JAAB choose one candidate amongst many to recommend to the MoJ. Even if that were the case, it still wouldn't be sufficient justification because JAAB consider ONLY non-judicial applicants and so would not be in a position to make and overall recommendation for the position.
But, and this is the key point: that is not how JAAB operates. As taken from the JAAB.ie website:Additional Practical Matters
...
5. In advance of the meeting the Secretary will issue copies of all applications held on file for that particular judicial office to each individual Board member. The Board meet and consider all the applications on file and decide which of the applicants it shall recommend to the Minister.
...
7. On receipt of a response from the Bar Council and the Law Society the Chairperson corresponds with the Minister informing the Minister of all those who applied for the vacancy/vacancies and enclosing a list of those applicants whom the Board recommend.
So you see, JAAB sends a list of recommended applicants to the MoJ, they don't whittle that list down to one name and choose their preferred candidate.
Yes, this appears to be her justification, she decided on Woulfe because JAAB recommended him. If we take her at her word, then this demonstrates a lack of competence for the job because it demonstrates a failure to understand the JAAB process.Bishop of hope wrote: »She decided on Woulfe as the jaab found him suitable.
Her failure to bring the names of ALL applicants to the three coalition party leaders displays a further lack of competence because she failed to recognise the potential conflict of interest in having a Fine Gael minister effectively appoint a a Fine Gael attorney general (and party activist) to the supreme court, when there were sitting judges who had also applied.
Of course, if Fine Gael were a majority government, Woulfe would have been appointed all the same, but that would be no less controversial as Micheal Martin argued about a previous Fine Gael judicial appointment.
If McEntee had presented ALL the names to the three coalition party leaders BEFORE submitting one name to cabinet, then it would have mitigated the potential conflict of interest, which has had the effect of impugning the appointment of a supreme court judge. Her failure to recognise and mitigate such a potential conflict of interest suggests an unsuitability for the office of MoJ.
Of course, it may just have been (and probably was) the case that she was indeed given a "hospital pass" and that the decision was part of the horse trading in the formation of government.
I'm just looking for at least a decent pretense of the separation of powers, not a blatant breach, followed by adding insult to injury by attempting to insult the intelligence of everyone in the country.Bishop of hope wrote: »What are you all looking for, an open to the public process where all the candidates are named?
Do you believe that the separation of powers of the Oireachtas and the judiciary is important?Bishop of hope wrote: »A petty time wasting exercise again by the opposition because they have nothing else to criticise govt for as things are going well enough otherwise.0 -
You're making a number of unfounded assumptions here that:
1) there was more than one applicant through JAAB.
2) there was more than one suitable applicant through JAAB.
3) JAAB chose the best candidate form amongst those applicants.
Assumption #3 is the key assumption. For McEntee's justification to have any credibility whatsoever, it would indeed require that JAAB choose one candidate amongst many to recommend to the MoJ. Even if that were the case, it still wouldn't be sufficient justification because JAAB consider ONLY non-judicial applicants and so would not be in a position to make and overall recommendation for the position.
But, and this is the key point: that is not how JAAB operates. As taken from the JAAB.ie website:
So you see, JAAB sends a list of recommended applicants to the MoJ, they don't whittle that list down to one name and choose their preferred candidate.
Yes, this appears to be her justification, she decided on Woulfe because JAAB recommended him. If we take her at her word, then this demonstrates a lack of competence for the job because it demonstrates a failure to understand the JAAB process.
Her failure to bring the names of ALL applicants to the three coalition party leaders displays a further lack of competence because she failed to recognise the potential conflict of interest in having a Fine Gael minister effectively appoint a a Fine Gael attorney general (and party activist) to the supreme court, when there were sitting judges who had also applied.
Of course, if Fine Gael were a majority government, Woulfe would have been appointed all the same, but that would be no less controversial as Micheal Martin argued about a previous Fine Gael judicial appointment.
If McEntee had presented ALL the names to the three coalition party leaders BEFORE submitting one name to cabinet, then it would have mitigated the potential conflict of interest, which has had the effect of impugning the appointment of a supreme court judge. Her failure to recognise and mitigate such a potential conflict of interest suggests an unsuitability for the office of MoJ.
Of course, it may just have been (and probably was) the case that she was indeed given a "hospital pass" and that the decision was part of the horse trading in the formation of government.
I'm just looking for at least a decent pretense of the separation of powers, not a blatant breach, followed by adding insult to injury by attempting to insult the intelligence of everyone in the country.
Do you believe that the separation of powers of the Oireachtas and the judiciary is important?
Wrong again, I made no assumptions as to where the candidates came from, I'm talking of the candidates before the Minister.
Somebody has to oversee and everybody.
Whom do you suggest is best to make judicial appointments and even then how do you appoint them that there is a guarantee of no political bias on that.
Because of legal issues in bringing any legislation forward there is always going to be a connection between the two as well.
That still doesn't mean that either can't act independently of the other.0 -
Advertisement
-
My apologies, I msiread that particular post.Bishop of hope wrote: »Wrong again, I made no assumptions as to where the candidates came from, I'm talking of the candidates before the Minister.
The issue seems to be with regard to the nature of JAAB's recommendation. As you have suggested, based on McEntee's statements, her primary justification for putting Woulfe's name forward to cabinet is because he was recommended by JAAB.
But the JAAB recommendation is not a recommendation for the position over and above any other candidate. It's not even a recommendation over and above other JAAB applicants. It is simply a recommendation of suitability i.e. a statement that there is nothing that bars the person from being considered.
If there were more than one suitable candidate applying through the JAAB process, JAAB would recommend more than one candidate to the MoJ. This is what makes JAAB's "recommendation" a de facto vetting process.
The fact that McEntee uses the JAAB "recommendation" as her primary justification for a) not informing the coalition party leaders of the other expressions of interest and b) for her submitting Woulfe's name to cabinet demonstrates that she doesn't understand the nature of the JAAB recommendation.
The fact that the three party leaders didn't even inquire about other expressions of interest, demonstrates that they are complicit in the incompetency.
Of course, that is only if you believe their story.
For starters, someone who understands that JAAB recommendations are not recommendations of suitability over and above all other candidates (not even over and above all suitable JAAB applicants).Bishop of hope wrote: »Somebody has to oversee and everybody.
Whom do you suggest is best to make judicial appointments
It may never be possible to guarantee that there is no political bias but steps can be taken to make the process more transparent and accountable. What if McEntee had entirely personal reasons for choosing Woulfe? Let's say Woulfe seduced her or they were having an ongoing affair, or perhaps Woulfe was blackmailing her somehow. There could be any number of reasons why a single person could be compromised. This likelihood is reduced when the circle is widened.Bishop of hope wrote: »and even then how do you appoint them that there is a guarantee of no political bias on that.
Because of legal issues in bringing any legislation forward there is always going to be a connection between the two as well.
That still doesn't mean that either can't act independently of the other.
By disclosing ALL of the expressions of interest to her party leader, she at least introduces some degree of accountability and transparency.
In this case, there was a clear and obvious potential for a conflict of interest charge, which has had the effect of impugning a supreme court justice. If she had disclosed ALL the expressions of interest to the three coalition party leaders she would have completely negated this potential charge because not only would she be involving other people, she would be involving other parties.
The fact that the three party leaders didn't even inquire as to the possibility of their being other expressions of interest demonstrates incompetency on their part also.
Again, that is if you believe their story.0
Advertisement