Brid Smith comments on High Court Judge

Bowie wrote: »

I think Brid is doing an excellent job. Nobody is above criticism including the judiciary. We need public representation that puts people above sponsors or any other intetests.
Too often we see workers left twisting in the wind. The Cleary's closure for instance.

What are you talking about? Brid Smith was elected on a mandate and that was given under the auspices of the Constitution. She can't just go on solo runs and attack judiciary. You might find more sustenance back on Facebook or Twitter with your poorly grounded ideas. Boards, also, world on a set of rules.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Anyway, that's possibly slightly off-topic on my behalf, because I believe the thrust of Brid Smith's point was the irony of someone on 200k per year (approximately) making a decision like this against workers who are already on very modest wages. I think a lot of us probably find that situation uncomfortable. I wasn't aware that ordinary judges of the High Court were on that kind of salary. It seems a little obscene. There are 36 of them.

A judges salary has nothing to do with the decision. She isn't actually even critising the decision itself. She is it critising the judges because she doesn't like the result and her criticism is as homemin. Or if you were to put in the context of boards she's attacking the poster not the post. Something thats not tolerated on a random Internet forum like boards never mind something as serious as the law of the land.

As others have pointed out if a person wants to make money stick to being a barrister or solicitor don't become a judge.

The process of how the judges came to their decision and isn't free from criticism. Even within decisions themselves you often have dissenting opinions which can be influential in the long term. The process and legal arguments used are very important due to the importance of precedent in our legal system. It gives predictability to the legal system. A politician can comment on the legal arguments but that's not what Brid has done she has complained about the result. If different people had been impacted by the same legal reasoning she wouldn't have cared. It's what Trump does. To hell with the legal process and the unwritten rules that make democracy work. Let's throw the toys out of the pram when I don't like the result.

Remember Brid Murphy is a part of party whose founding ideology has resulted in millions of deaths in the name of that ideology and countless more abuses of human rights. An independent judiciary is a critically important barrier to dictators. But independence can be as much about perception and that what homemin attacks by people like Brid Murphy are so serious.


Also what your post amounts to is saying that low paid workers are above the law because a judge with a salary above X can't be trusted to make a fair decision. This I hope is obviously ridiculous but its where you end up if you say a judges salary are somehow relevant to the facts of a case before them.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you seen the judgment? I think she might have found some irony in the judge, on 200k per year, with absolutely no self-awareness, causing these workers' very modest incomes "high rates of remunderation". He said while the workers might like this, he didn't think it was competitive. Thousands of workers with families to look after are now facing a drop in income from about 18 euro to the minimum wage.

Does that give some extra context here? The judge made some other comments in his judgment about failures of the Labour Court which I actually agree had some mertit, but it was no doubt the above lines that rankled with Brid Smith and, surely, every person with an ounce of common sense in their heads.

I'm also tired of this notion that judges go into the job in pursuit of public service and take a massive pay cut. I am sure that, like most citizens, they feel a strong sense of duty to the country. But I don't know if that's even necessarily true about the pay cut; in any case, the public-sector, index-linked pensions, guaranteed by the state, are obviously a huge advantage after years of private practice. That's another interesting aspect: The ruling now means that employers no longer have to contribute 30 quid (!!) a week towards these tradespeople's pensions, as had been agreed.

But lets not comment on judges' pay and pensions, that's so vulgar.

Read it the arguments made were legal ones with some very technical points of law and fact involved. Salary of the judge has nothing to do with it. They don't wake up saying how can I screw someone. Indeed the best judge you can have is one that says I don't like my decision but the law is clear and its not a matter of opinion. Issue rests with the legislator who have failed these people ironically that includes Deputy Smith.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you seen the judgment? I think she might have found some irony in the judge, on 200k per year, with absolutely no self-awareness, causing these workers' very modest incomes "high rates of remunderation". He said while the workers might like this, he didn't think it was competitive. Thousands of workers with families to look after are now facing a drop in income from about 18 euro to the minimum wage.

Does that give some extra context here? The judge made some other comments in his judgment about failures of the Labour Court which I actually agree had some mertit, but it was no doubt the above lines that rankled with Brid Smith and, surely, every person with an ounce of common sense in their heads.

I'm also tired of this notion that judges go into the job in pursuit of public service and take a massive pay cut. I am sure that, like most citizens, they feel a strong sense of duty to the country. But I don't know if that's even necessarily true about the pay cut; in any case, the public-sector, index-linked pensions, guaranteed by the state, are obviously a huge advantage after years of private practice. That's another interesting aspect: The ruling now means that employers no longer have to contribute 30 quid (!!) a week towards these tradespeople's pensions, as had been agreed.

But lets not comment on judges' pay and pensions, that's so vulgar.

What has any of your post got to do with the judgement itself?

I get you don't like the result but obviously you don't disagree with the Judges legal logic. This legal logic is important as that is what gives the law predictablity and ensures its not one law or one person and another for someone else. If the same legal logic had impacted someone "rich"/some who isn't in line with her ideology she wouldn't have had an issue. Which is hypocrisy. Its what Trump does.

So you don't like the result of the ruling? Have you been onto your local TD? In the case of Brid Murphy maybe instead of undermining the indepence of the judiciary may be should actually do her job and propose a private members bill or lobby the government to introduce a bill that achieves the same goal but within the laws and constitution of the state. Remember like Judges Brid Murphy is relatively well paid to do her job.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't know if I disagree with his logic, because I don't know what the alternative views would be regarding some of his points. The legislation that he struck down as unconstitutional will have been approved by an Attorney General, and that former Attorney-General is now a judge on the Court of Appeal (I'm not saying she'd be hearing this case, just pointing out that there must be a some contradictory view).

In any case, Brid Smith's point wasn't on a point of law. She pointed out the hypocrisy of this judge announcing that 18 euro per hour is "a hugh rate of remuneration" when he is on 200k of public money, and that the agreement reached between emoloyers and employees is not competitive; clearly he thinks the employers can do better than that.

I think that a remark like that needs to be challenged robustly by our public representatives -- people who, by the way, are just as equally protected under the Separation of Powers as the judges are. To read the judges' criticism of Brid Smith in their lengthy essay, you'd think the Separation of Powers only existed to protect them.

The level of hyperbole regarding Brid Smith's comments is pretty wild. If she had accused a judge of being a traitor, or corrupt, the criticism would be totally merited. She said the guy was paid too much and that he was giving vulnerable people the boot; a lot of people might agree. I do.
But the AJI went off on one, implying this the very Rule of Law was in danger. I have never encountered such abject sensitivity anywhere in public life, have you?

So again you don't like the result but don't know and or understand the reasoning. And just because a law has been passed it does not mean its automatically constitutional. Its the courts job to decide that. Its Brid Murphys job as a TD to pass legislation. However the Dail or any TD does not get to decide if a law ultimately is in line with the constitution. That's the job of the Supreme Court. This case is not the first time the Supreme Court has overruled the Dail and hopefully it won't be the last. As the Supreme Court particularly acts as a check on the Dail and more importantly the government of the day it is very important that they are not only independent but seen to independent. Brid Murphy has brought this into question.

The wages of everyone who have been impacted and the judges that made the decision are irrelevant. The judges didn't rule on wages specifically. That's not to say you can't have a discussion on them but she has used the judges wages to bring them into question saying they are beholden to some mythical "elite" and therefore can't be trusted because they earn X salary. As I have said if she really wants to help the people impacted she could start by doing her job and not by acting like a wanabe dictator.

Brid Murphy is challenging the rule of law in a small way. Look a Trump and any dictator. One of the biggest steps to a dictatorship is undermining the independence of the judiciary to ensure its does not hold members of Parliament to account. Now remember Brid Murphy is a TD. She is challenging the right of the court to overrule her on the basis that it doesn't support her ideology. So the AJI was perfectly correct. Look at Trump and the damage he did, look at the damage dictators do full stop.

It's important that the rule of law is upheld. That starts with the people who make the law TD's like Brid Murphy. If TD's make laws that are bad worded or go against the constitution it's important that they accept the authority of the courts to overrule them.

Bowie wrote: »

I find it hopeful.

The judiciary are already politicised. The idea that they may be out of touch is very valid, as shown by this particular judge IMO.

What in your opinion is wrong with this particular judge? Have you read the judgment? What in your opinion is incorrect with it?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He described the salaries, agreed between unions and employers as "high rates of remuneration" and suggested it wasn't competitive enough.

That is not what he said:

https://beta.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/22265e8d-1c0f-42df-b040-e6c7bc338281/2020_IEHC_303.pdf/pdf wrote:

Whereas these outcomes may well be laudable or desirable, the statutory language used is too imprecise to provide any meaningful guidance to the Labour Court. A decision to impose minimum terms and conditions of employment upon an entire economic sector necessitates making difficult policy choices. This is because the consequences of making a sectoral employment order are so far-reaching, and the interests of the principal stakeholders, namely, the employers, workers and consumers; are not necessarily aligned. The fixing of high rates of renumeration might well be welcomed by workers, but may limit competition, and thus adversely affect consumers.

That is quite clearly a general statement, not specific to electricians or €18 an hour, and in the context of the legality of the legislation. Bríd Smith's attack is disgraceful, and frankly, I doubt whether she's even read the judgement, much less understood the legal nuances

Podge_irl wrote: »

You have claimed he stopped employers and employees from agreeing minimum rates of pay - this is not correct.
You have claimed he is swooping in to save employers from themselves - this is not correct.
You are framing the entire case as one of the High Court intervening in a labour agreement about rates of pay - this is not correct.
I am happy to correct this if I have somehow misunderstood that this is what you were saying, but it seems pretty clear to me.

The judicial restraint refers to not considering constitutional issues if not required for a judgement - which in this case they are not as the SEO would be invalid regardless. However, the judgement explains quite clearly why it does go on to consider the constitutional issue - Both parties wanted it to, the constitutional arguments had been made and it would have ended up back before the court anyway. Why delay the inevitable and at extra cost for all involved? Beyond that there is nothing remotely "unusually interventionist" about the ruling.

The constitutional ruling does not care whether the SEO sets the limit at 1 cent above the minimum wage or 500Eur. All talk in it of "high rates of remuneration" are used in the abstract and have nothing whatsoever to do with the particulars of this case. In short, the ruling just says the primary legislation is not fit for purpose as it is too vague to allow for secondary legislation.

Thankfully, legislators can fix that by amending the legislation, rather than resorting to asinine and misguided attacks on the Court itself.

I think the overall point here is that socialists will distort the actual ruling to suit their own agenda and create a false sense that court rulings are based on class handed down by the elite. It suits them and a lot of people who vote for the likes of smith will swallow it. Facts, unfortunately, don’t matter.