General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

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.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But they could and probably were all suitable, as in many jobs, but 1 is picked.

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:

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.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

She decided on Woulfe as the jaab found him suitable.

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.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What are you all looking for, an open to the public process where all the candidates are named?

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: »

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.

Do you believe that the separation of powers of the Oireachtas and the judiciary is important?

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.

My apologies, I msiread that particular post.

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.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Somebody has to oversee and everybody.
Whom do you suggest is best to make judicial appointments

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: »

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.

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.

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.