Brid Smith TD makes personalised attack on High Court judge

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
12,600
it’s not demeaning to Brid.
unless you call trousering (or skirting) €173,000 demeaning?
173k is middling. Go bigly. If you are going to pull a number out of your hole, try a million. Its as implausible, but sounds more impressive, and if anyone was gullible enough to fall for 173k, they will buy a million.
 


Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
11,316
173k is middling. Go bigly. If you are going to pull a number out of your hole, try a million. Its as implausible, but sounds more impressive, and if anyone was gullible enough to fall for 173k, they will buy a million.
I’ll stick to the facts if it’s alright with you
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
12,600
it’s not demeaning to Brid.
unless you call trousering (or skirting) €173,000 demeaning?
How much did Dara Murphy trouser? I don't see any comment from you on that
 

IvoShandor

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
7,518
Twitter
yes
Ah! The old, "elect the judges" nonsense. Justice and law is not a matter for popular opinion. If you expect people to administer justice and apply the law, in an unfettered manner, the worst thing you can do is make their job contingent on the public whim. It puts judges in the position of risking removal, in an election, by handing out an unpopular decision, even if that decision is legally sound.
The administration of Justice is not a matter for the public whim.
Exactly. Look, for an example, at a state where increasingly, the appointment of judges are increasingly openly political acts to benefit one side or the other; the USA. A country where partisanship is running riot and infecting every aspect of society.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
12,600
Exactly. Look, for an example, at a state where increasingly, the appointment of judges are increasingly openly political acts to benefit one side or the other; the USA. A country where partisanship is running riot and infecting every aspect of society.
So we just accept one side appointing judges and dispense with the criticism bit?
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
36,610
173k is middling. Go bigly. If you are going to pull a number out of your hole, try a million. Its as implausible, but sounds more impressive, and if anyone was gullible enough to fall for 173k, they will buy a million.
I see you disputed the 173k figure but did not say what the actual salary is.

snigger
 

Greener

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,546
So we just accept one side appointing judges and dispense with the criticism bit?
Who is saying that? But Judicial elections are awful for independence. They essentially have a whiff of prejudgement about them.

You might read my post on Saturday about the range of oversights available.
 

reg11

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
3,673
As
Who is saying that? But Judicial elections are awful for independence. They essentially have a whiff of prejudgement about them.

You might read my post on Saturday about the range of oversights available.
As I told you , none of your oversights address the gaping need for oversight of the administrators of law.
 

Greener

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,546
As
As I told you , none of your oversights address the gaping need for oversight of the administrators of law.
Totally disagree.

But as a matter of interest, what do you suggest?
 

Greener

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,546
Never mind criticism, one isn't even allowed to make a comment. These shysters know no shame.
Who said that you can't comment?
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,494
I've often criticised judges here and I might not always have been right about it either. But, that's not the issue. It's the ignorant basis of the criticism. If you are criticising a judgement of a court, surely you should be reading the judgement and pointing out what parts of it you disagree with. Instead what we've got here (and from Smith) is criticism of his salary, and (in this thread) wildly misplaced criticism of his background and personal appearance and accusations of corruption.

Reading a 69 page judgement requires effort of course, but there's no excuse for a political party to not do that, if it's a cause that really matters to them. Unless of course, they have and can find nothing wrong with it. But I doubt that they have read it. We shouldn't forget that Smith and the last FG government are ostensibly on the same side of this question. It's an FG written law that the judge has declared unconstitutional and it's interesting that it's the judge rather than FG who is the target of Smith's ire. If the law was passed by the Attorney General and her advisors then there is presumably some basis of argument to support an appeal against it, but Bríd Smith prefers silly memes on Facebook.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,565
Brid Smith has to make waves in an overcrowded paddling pool of leftie have-not politicos.

And not being a leftie, I agree with her that how all public money is spent should be open for debate.

However, judges have to judge what is in front of them, in this case a "law" passed by a democratically elected Dail.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
12,600
You can comment.

Legislators have a different role, so its different.
So legislators have less right to comment on matters of public importance than ordinary civilians.

I think your logic took a wrong turn somewhere
 

Greener

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,546
So legislators have less right to comment on matters of public importance than ordinary civilians.

I think your logic took a wrong turn somewhere
Don't be disingenuous. You know full well I'm talking about legislative comment on judicial decisions.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom