Ross Wants Judges Chosen By Beauty Pageant

bactrian

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
1,264
Shane Ross: Legal cronyism over judges jobs as bad as political cronyism

Shane Ross probably should have entitled his diatribe "A Trumpet Blast Against The Monstrous Regimen Of Lawyers". His destain and prejudice against lawyers and judges pervades every sentence. He bookends his attack on the Judiciary by quoting the Chief Justice's call for " respect to the other” and then launches a groundless, factless, inaccurate vilification of the judiciary.

In his diatribe Shane Ross claims [i/]" At long last it seems the appointment of judges is to be taken out of the political arena."[/i]

Let's examine that particular piece of nonsense.

The Committee who will choose Judges will have 2 judges, and 9 persons who are not lawyers(including the Chairperson). "Not Lawyers" means that these persons have never been Solicitors or Barristers i.e. they have no practical experience of law.

Can you imagine a surgeon being chosen by someone who has no medical training and who has never stood in an operating theatre.

Your liberty, your civil rights, your access to justice will be determined by a committee who have no understanding of law, constitution or Human Rights. This Committee will make decisions based on : Not Conservative/Liberal enough; Too Feminist/Not Feminist Enough; Is Pro/Anti Immigration ; etc.

Lots of niche political prejudices will determine how much justice you can expect.



If Shane Ross has his way Justice will be determined by Prejudice, Petulance and Pettifoggery
 


gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Shane Ross: Legal cronyism over judges jobs as bad as political cronyism

Shane Ross probably should have entitled his diatribe "A Trumpet Blast Against The Monstrous Regimen Of Lawyers". His destain and prejudice against lawyers and judges pervades every sentence. He bookends his attack on the Judiciary by quoting the Chief Justice's call for " respect to the other” and then launches a groundless, factless, inaccurate vilification of the judiciary.

In his diatribe Shane Ross claims [i/]" At long last it seems the appointment of judges is to be taken out of the political arena."[/i]

Let's examine that particular piece of nonsense.

The Committee who will choose Judges will have 2 judges, and 9 persons who are not lawyers(including the Chairperson). "Not Lawyers" means that these persons have never been Solicitors or Barristers i.e. they have no practical experience of law.

Can you imagine a surgeon being chosen by someone who has no medical training and who has never stood in an operating theatre.

Your liberty, your civil rights, your access to justice will be determined by a committee who have no understanding of law, constitution or Human Rights. This Committee will make decisions based on : Not Conservative/Liberal enough; Too Feminist/Not Feminist Enough; Is Pro/Anti Immigration ; etc.

Lots of niche political prejudices will determine how much justice you can expect.



If Shane Ross has his way Justice will be determined by Prejudice, Petulance and Pettifoggery
Perhaps the Committee should include ex criminals? They know the system better than anyone.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
I dunno, it's like his intentions are good, but he goes too far, somewhat bátshít crazy.

The whole process needs cleaned up for sure, but not like this.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
I dunno, it's like his intentions are good, but he goes too far, somewhat bátshít crazy.

The whole process needs cleaned up for sure, but not like this.
Its a very difficult nut to crack. Anyone knowledgeable is not impartial. Anyone impartial is not knowledgable.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,092
I don't think judges have an interest in seeing incompetent and/or lazy people being appointed as judges. It's definitely in their interest to see the best people being appointed. Otherwise, they are only causing trouble for themselves with bad decisions of lower courts ending up being appealed and overturned.

Political patronage (such as it is, and grossly overestimated imo) would be replaced as the OP says with other forms of patronage, involving unelected lay people with particular prejudices of their own.

I think it's just a question of balance though. There should be both lay involvement and also judicial involvement.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
I don't think judges have an interest in seeing incompetent and/or lazy people being appointed as judges. It's definitely in their interest to see the best people being appointed. Otherwise, they are only causing trouble for themselves with bad decisions of lower courts ending up being appealed and overturned.

Political patronage (such as it is, and grossly overestimated imo) would be replaced as the OP says with other forms of patronage, involving unelected lay people with particular prejudices of their own.

I think it's just a question of balance though. There should be both lay involvement and also judicial involvement.
The most impartial system would be some kind of exam. Everyone takes the same exam, best scores get the job.

Committees with ill-defined requirements are a bad idea.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,933
Did you hear about the judge with no balls?

Justice Mickey.
 

bactrian

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
1,264
I don't think judges have an interest in seeing incompetent and/or lazy people being appointed as judges. It's definitely in their interest to see the best people being appointed. Otherwise, they are only causing trouble for themselves with bad decisions of lower courts ending up being appealed and overturned.

Political patronage (such as it is, and grossly overestimated imo) would be replaced as the OP says with other forms of patronage, involving unelected lay people with particular prejudices of their own.

I think it's just a question of balance though. There should be both lay involvement and also judicial involvement.
Just for clarity I absolutely believe that lay participation in the selection of judges would add huge value to the process. AFAIK this is the attitude of the Judiciary.

The proposal is for an 11(eleven) person committee . My preference would be for 6(six) lawyers (Judges X 2, Practicing Solicitors X 1, Barristers X 1 and Academic Lawyers X 2) with 5 Lay Members. I have no opinion on who should chair the committee.
 

milipod

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
7,766
Why not have bigger tits on the bench.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,092
The most impartial system would be some kind of exam. Everyone takes the same exam, best scores get the job.

Committees with ill-defined requirements are a bad idea.
I never said ill-defined requirements. While an exam would be impartial, you wouldn't necessarily get the best candidates. How would you measure things like workrate through an exam? Most jobs have an element of drudgery and you need people who just get on with it. Can't be measured in a test. Judges will know from seeing them appear before them, who the good/energetic lawyers are and who are the spoofers that might be able to fake a test.

I'm not sure about practicing lawyers being involved. There could be potential for conflicts of interest there, unless you ensure they wouldn't end up appearing before the judge.
 

Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,253
The ruling class doesn't like any interference with its corrupt little system.

We have appointees as 'judges' who are as removed from the common people as the mandarins of the Tang dynasty were from the serfs.

This nest of privilege is long overdue a good rooting out.



.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
The ruling class doesn't like any interference with its corrupt little system.

We have appointees as 'judges' who are as removed from the common people as the mandarins of the Tang dynasty were from the serfs.

This nest of privilege is long overdue a good rooting out.



.
Ross is hardly the man to see it through, though.
He'd probably confine it to regulars at the Shelbourne bar and some of his other haunts.
 

lostexpectation

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
14,124
Website
dublinstreams.blogspot.com
Shane Ross: Legal cronyism over judges jobs as bad as political cronyism

Shane Ross probably should have entitled his diatribe "A Trumpet Blast Against The Monstrous Regimen Of Lawyers". His destain and prejudice against lawyers and judges pervades every sentence. He bookends his attack on the Judiciary by quoting the Chief Justice's call for " respect to the other” and then launches a groundless, factless, inaccurate vilification of the judiciary.

In his diatribe Shane Ross claims [i/]" At long last it seems the appointment of judges is to be taken out of the political arena."[/i]

Let's examine that particular piece of nonsense.

The Committee who will choose Judges will have 2 judges, and 9 persons who are not lawyers(including the Chairperson). "Not Lawyers" means that these persons have never been Solicitors or Barristers i.e. they have no practical experience of law.
don't know where you are getting your numbers from
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/scheme_of_judicial_appointments_commission_bill_2016.pdf/Files/scheme_of_judicial_appointments_commission_bill_2016.pdf

2 judges, the AG, 6 lay people and a solitcitor and a barrister
(2) The members shall be

(a) a Chairperson who shall be a lay member nominated in accordance with subhead (4)
13
(b) the Chief Justice, or on nomination by the Chief Justice for the purposes of any meeting the next most senior ordinary judge for the time being of the Supreme Court who is available
(c) (i) the President of the Court of Appeal, or
(ii) the President of the High Court, as decided between them
(d) The Attorney General
(e) A practising barrister nominated by the Council of the Bar of Ireland
(f) A practising solicitor nominated by the president for the time being of the Law Society of Ireland,
(g) 5 lay members
 
Last edited:

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,462
Shane Ross: Legal cronyism over judges jobs as bad as political cronyism

Shane Ross probably should have entitled his diatribe "A Trumpet Blast Against The Monstrous Regimen Of Lawyers". His destain and prejudice against lawyers and judges pervades every sentence. He bookends his attack on the Judiciary by quoting the Chief Justice's call for " respect to the other” and then launches a groundless, factless, inaccurate vilification of the judiciary.

In his diatribe Shane Ross claims [i/]" At long last it seems the appointment of judges is to be taken out of the political arena."[/i]

Let's examine that particular piece of nonsense.

The Committee who will choose Judges will have 2 judges, and 9 persons who are not lawyers(including the Chairperson). "Not Lawyers" means that these persons have never been Solicitors or Barristers i.e. they have no practical experience of law.

Can you imagine a surgeon being chosen by someone who has no medical training and who has never stood in an operating theatre.

Your liberty, your civil rights, your access to justice will be determined by a committee who have no understanding of law, constitution or Human Rights. This Committee will make decisions based on : Not Conservative/Liberal enough; Too Feminist/Not Feminist Enough; Is Pro/Anti Immigration ; etc.

Lots of niche political prejudices will determine how much justice you can expect.



If Shane Ross has his way Justice will be determined by Prejudice, Petulance and Pettifoggery
Sounds like tonic's suggestion about selection of Mods :D
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
55,156
The judiciary are in practice unelected kings who cannot be removed (remember when the courts shut down the impeachment committee investigating a judge whose trial collapsed). They also object through the Law Society to declaring their interests. The principle of independent judiciary started in 1688 and it's time for it to be reviewed just as the powers of the English monarchy were in 1215, 1641, 1661, 1688 etc.

We are told we may not even criticise them, which is a kind of a request for lese-majeste law of the kind that used to apply to the British monarchs and still does in more severe firm in Thailand.

They hold power without any accountability. This is unacceptable
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
49,005
The ruling class doesn't like any interference with its corrupt little system.

We have appointees as 'judges' who are as removed from the common people as the mandarins of the Tang dynasty were from the serfs.

This nest of privilege is long overdue a good rooting out.



.
The first priority for a judge is that he or she knows and understands the law. Anyone, be they common or uncommon who doesn't have the requisite qualifications to do that, has no reason to be anywhere near being a judge. That's basic common sense.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
49,005
The judiciary are in practice unelected kings who cannot be removed (remember when the courts shut down the impeachment committee investigating a judge whose trial collapsed). They also object through the Law Society to declaring their interests. The principle of independent judiciary started in 1688 and it's time for it to be reviewed just as the powers of the English monarchy were in 1215, 1641, 1661, 1688 etc.

We are told we may not even criticise them, which is a kind of a request for lese-majeste law of the kind that used to apply to the British monarchs and still does in more severe firm in Thailand.

They hold power without any accountability. This is unacceptable
What on earth are you talking about? There is absolutely no bar to criticising judges.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top