Social Democrats call for US-style vetting of senior officials

pedagogus

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
2,731
No I am not. I am asking how if they do not self-declare, how would any vetting process fix that?
Also, what is the risk? Judges interpret the law...what risk are you concerned about?
Are you serious? Judges in the Commercial Court make far reaching judgements about financial matters which might have personal implications for them. S.C judges are the ultimate arbiters in all cases bar those that wend their way to the EU. We need to be assuredthey have clean hands.
The point of forcing them to make a formal declaration is that if they are found to be in breach they can be dismissed without damaging the separation of powers.
 


The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
11,924
All known about him. Yet still chosen. How would any of that change with a vetting process without going the US route?
Oh, sorry SIL, I'm not really taking a side in this argument, I was just posting that to highlight the current quality of our judiciary.

I can see merit in both sides of the debate, just haven't drawn my own conclusions as of yet?
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
10,790
No I am not. I am asking how if they do not self-declare, how would any vetting process fix that?
Also, what is the risk? Judges interpret the law...what risk are you concerned about?
How does it fix civil servants or Gardai? It catches some, but if you fail to declare and are caught you are banjoed.

Joe Bloggs v Apple. Judge has €100k in Apple. Or Bord Plenala v 4CourtHomez. You can't see an issue with impartiality?
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
11,924
How does it fix civil servants or Gardai? It catches some, but if you fail to declare and are caught you are banjoed.

Joe Bloggs v Apple. Judge has €100k in Apple. Or Bord Plenala v 4CourtHomez. You can't see an issue with impartiality?
Upon first read of your second paragraph there I had visions of bewigged barristers in their low riding rag tops listening to some Snoop to da muthafuqqin D.

But you did not, in fact say ''4courthomiez''. My bad.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,626
How does it fix civil servants or Gardai? It catches some, but if you fail to declare and are caught you are banjoed.

Joe Bloggs v Apple. Judge has €100k in Apple. Or Bord Plenala v 4CourtHomez. You can't see an issue with impartiality?
It's your solution I have an issue with. If it relies on self declaration, then naturally a judge who would be inclined to be partial in such a case would be more inclined not to bother declaring the interest. And if it needs to be declared, then how would anybody ever know if they lied?

Far more important are tests of character.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,626
Oh, sorry SIL, I'm not really taking a side in this argument, I was just posting that to highlight the current quality of our judiciary.

I can see merit in both sides of the debate, just haven't drawn my own conclusions as of yet?
Cool. I am not particularly exercised by this, but I don't like to see solutions put forward as solutions if they are designed to fix an imaginary problem or a misunderstood problem. I'm just trying to tease out what the actual problem might be...
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,626
Are you serious? Judges in the Commercial Court make far reaching judgements about financial matters which might have personal implications for them. S.C judges are the ultimate arbiters in all cases bar those that wend their way to the EU. We need to be assuredthey have clean hands.
The point of forcing them to make a formal declaration is that if they are found to be in breach they can be dismissed without damaging the separation of powers.
Yep, I am serious. Are you saying that if a judge has a 10k investment in Apple they can never be a judge in such a case? Just where will your level of conflict be set? It is not as simple as you make out.

What if the best judge in the land has a minor investment, are we saying that person cannot try the case?

Of course we could require them to divest of everything and compensate them hugely in return, but that wouldn't be acceptable to the public.

Which brings me back to asking what evidence there is of some significant problem with the current system.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
10,790
Yep, I am serious. Are you saying that if a judge has a 10k investment in Apple they can never be a judge in such a case? Just where will your level of conflict be set? It is not as simple as you make out.

What if the best judge in the land has a minor investment, are we saying that person cannot try the case?

Of course we could require them to divest of everything and compensate them hugely in return, but that wouldn't be acceptable to the public.

Which brings me back to asking what evidence there is of some significant problem with the current system.
If you have ANY vested interest in a case you recuse yoursef. That shouldn't need explaining
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
10,790
It's your solution I have an issue with. If it relies on self declaration, then naturally a judge who would be inclined to be partial in such a case would be more inclined not to bother declaring the interest. And if it needs to be declared, then how would anybody ever know if they lied?

Far more important are tests of character.
How do you think it works where there is vetting? If a Regulator in the energy sector failed to declare shares in an oil company that they were inspecting and it came to light, they are fired on the spot. No ifs or buts.

It wont catch everything, but its better than what we have.

Are you arguing to remove background checks and disclosures from the entire public and lots of the private sector or just keep judges as a special case?
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,626
If you have ANY vested interest in a case you recuse yoursef. That shouldn't need explaining
If I have 1000 euros of shares in a company with a market capitalisation in the hundreds of billions, I need to recuse myself?

What if my pension fund over which I have no discretion is so invested?
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
10,790
If I have 1000 euros of shares in a company with a market capitalisation in the hundreds of billions, I need to recuse myself?

What if my pension fund over which I have no discretion is so invested?
Yes. Of course you do. You have a material interest in the outcome.

Interesting question. If you are unaware of the conflict, one thing. If you aren't, recuse.

We are getting silly now
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,626
How do you think it works where there is vetting? If a Regulator in the energy sector failed to declare shares in an oil company that they were inspecting and it came to light, they are fired on the spot. No ifs or buts.

It wont catch everything, but its better than what we have.

Are you arguing to remove background checks and disclosures from the entire public and lots of the private sector or just keep judges as a special case?
You are arguing that it be introduced, I know nothing of the details of background checks in the other areas of public life.

Judges are hired because it is felt that they can be impartial and can apply the law fairly. If a minor investment in a firm is something which the system feels a judge cannot be impartial because of, then that person is not trusted to be a judge, full stop. Recusal from that case is not sufficient.

It is not as simple as you suggest. Should catholic judges be able to make rulings on abortion cases? Where does supposed conflict end?
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,626
Yes. Of course you do. You have a material interest in the outcome.

Interesting question. If you are unaware of the conflict, one thing. If you aren't, recuse.

We are getting silly now
How is that a material interest in the outcome? The trickle down would be wholly immaterial.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
10,790
You are arguing that it be introduced, I know nothing of the details of background checks in the other areas of public life.

Judges are hired because it is felt that they can be impartial and can apply the law fairly. If a minor investment in a firm is something which the system feels a judge cannot be impartial because of, then that person is not trusted to be a judge, full stop. Recusal from that case is not sufficient.

It is not as simple as you suggest. Should catholic judges be able to make rulings on abortion cases? Where does supposed conflict end?
So are civil and public servants. Yet we insist they disclose.

Justice has to be seen to be impartial

If you are so Catholic you are Opus Dei, then a conversation needs ti happen.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
10,790
How is that a material interest in the outcome? The trickle down would be wholly immaterial.
If you rule one way your investment falls, another or rises. €1 or €1m isn't relevant.

Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in court fighting a, say, supermarket development near you and it turns out the judge had €50k in it, you would shrug your shoulders and say he must be impartial, how else could he have got the job? Pull the other one.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
57,805
Yep, I am serious. Are you saying that if a judge has a 10k investment in Apple they can never be a judge in such a case? Just where will your level of conflict be set? It is not as simple as you make out.

What if the best judge in the land has a minor investment, are we saying that person cannot try the case?

Of course we could require them to divest of everything and compensate them hugely in return, but that wouldn't be acceptable to the public.

Which brings me back to asking what evidence there is of some significant problem with the current system.
€10000 is not a minor investment to most people.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
51,626
If you rule one way your investment falls, another or rises. €1 or €1m isn't relevant.

Are you seriously suggesting that if you were in court fighting a, say, supermarket development near you and it turns out the judge had €50k in it, you would shrug your shoulders and say he must be impartial, how else could he have got the job? Pull the other one.
You're saying that a judge is conflicted because they might stand to gain a euro? What if the judge just hates Apple products? What about that conflict?

No, as per the case which went to the SC, I would be p1ssed. But then I would not be impartial either!

I think a simple declaration when the case is ready to sit should be sufficient. The persons concerned could then decide to object or not.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
57,805
In the context of the market capitalisation of the firm it is, because any judgment would have a negligible impact on the 10k
That would depend on the nature of the ruling.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top