Suzy D's Report on Wolfey the Golfer
- Thread starter mathepac
- Start date
You sir are part of the great unwashed. You should not question your betters, rather tug the forelock and know your place.
Jeeze @Purple you're no help. I possess not a forelock on which to tug, not even for combing over, Trump-style. Will genuflection or curtseying suffice? Or should I emulate that great Corkonian, Sir Walter Raleigh, and throw myself across the nearest puddle to be walked on again?
Bread & water @joer? Nah, the bowlers would be dragging the upper-classes offa the streets for me to dine on. Well trained them two.
Bread & water @joer? Nah, the bowlers would be dragging the upper-classes offa the streets for me to dine on. Well trained them two.
I'm in the same boat mathepac; an expanding forehead. I therefore try to avoid my betters when possible which is hard given that my lowly status makes most people my better.
I want to see a Supreme Court judge impeached, because I haven't seen that happen before.
In the US they seem to have great craic nominating them, ours seem to be done on the golf course.
So let's have an impeachment. It's a great way to get people interested in our constitutional process.
In the US they seem to have great craic nominating them, ours seem to be done on the golf course.
So let's have an impeachment. It's a great way to get people interested in our constitutional process.
Technically it's not an impeachment, it's a dismissal.
Should a Judge be dismissed because they are a difficult and unpopular person?
Should a Judge be able to ignore public health guidelines and shrug off criticism from the government and their colleagues with impunity?
It's a really difficult situation for the government.
Fair points, but you're taking the fun out of now.
The government wouldn't be in the situation had the government picked a more suitable candidate not put a blatantly political appointee on the supreme court...
He was on the Fit_ness to Practise Committees of the Medical Council and the Nurses and Midwives Board. In the context of his reaction to this situation I find that disturbing. That said nobody has ever suggested that he has discharged his duties as either a Barrister or a Judge with anything other than the highest integrity.
It's worth noting that Michael Martin said that he was recommended for the Supreme Court position by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and it was not a government nomination.
It is strange alright, the appointment went through several filters.
Something about putting someone direct from attorney general onto the Supreme Court seems off to me, no matter the calibre of the individual.
I think he went back to The Bar for a short while in between.
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,434
Lock him up!
There is something a bit hysterical about this whole thing. He's clearly not popular with his colleagues and has shown a complete lack of cop-on (or an abundance of hubris) in his response to this but should a Judge lose his job for ignoring public health guidelines, being arrogant and being unpopular?
There are real questions about separation of powers here, compounded by what may well be a justifiable but emotional response from the public but emotion is the enemy of reason.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,434
These guys did not think they were plotting the Great Train Robbery. Yes they probably thought the partition thing was a bit naughty. But for a Minister and and a Commissioner to lose their jobs and for a well respected commentator to lose a contract and now the first impeachment of a judge in the 100 year history of the State; witch hunt comes to mind.
Good letter in the Irish Times. Frank Clarke said "It is not my role to ask you or to tell you to resign but I think you should resign". Is that some sort of legal joke?
Yep, not content with a colleague making a laughing stock of the Judiciary the Chief Justice joins in.
Is this our version of Cancel Culture?
From the JAAB Annual Report 2019.
"Section 16 of the Act goes on to require the Government when advising the President in relation to the appointment of a person to a judicial office to first consider persons who have been recommended by the Board. When a person is appointed on a recommendation by the Board, notice of that fact shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil.
The Board shall not submit or recommend the name of a person unless that person meets the eligibility requirements laid down by statute. Further, the Board shall not recommend the name of any person unless in the opinion of the Board the person concerned:
The bolded and red-coloured text above is done by me for commentary below.
I wonder what criteria they applied to approve Wolfey's appointment as a Supreme. Certainly since his appointment and since GolfGate he has displayed anything but the character and temprement to be suitable for the job he has yet to do a stroke of work in. He's creating work for others trying to clean up his mess and put a cap on the controversies he has given rise to, but done nothing to lighten the workload of his brother and sister Supremes. Clarkey is right; resign, you're an embarrassment Shamie.
"Section 16 of the Act goes on to require the Government when advising the President in relation to the appointment of a person to a judicial office to first consider persons who have been recommended by the Board. When a person is appointed on a recommendation by the Board, notice of that fact shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil.
The Board shall not submit or recommend the name of a person unless that person meets the eligibility requirements laid down by statute. Further, the Board shall not recommend the name of any person unless in the opinion of the Board the person concerned:
- has displayed in his/her practice as a barrister or solicitor, as the case may be, a degree of competence and a degree of probity appropriate to and consistent with the appointment concerned;
- is suitable on grounds of character and temperament;
- is otherwise suitable; and
- complies with the requirements of Section 19 of the Act.
The bolded and red-coloured text above is done by me for commentary below.
I wonder what criteria they applied to approve Wolfey's appointment as a Supreme. Certainly since his appointment and since GolfGate he has displayed anything but the character and temprement to be suitable for the job he has yet to do a stroke of work in. He's creating work for others trying to clean up his mess and put a cap on the controversies he has given rise to, but done nothing to lighten the workload of his brother and sister Supremes. Clarkey is right; resign, you're an embarrassment Shamie.
Last edited:
A few things struck me about this;
- If he was considered suitable what does that say about the rest of them who were appointed using the same criteria?
- Were the existing judges lining up someone else for the job and now have a bit of an agenda in throwing him under the bus? If they liked him, if he was one of their own, I very much doubt that the correspondence we've seen would ever have been made public. Lawyers are capable of closing shop with the best of them and these guys are, literally, a law unto themselves.
This heating up fast and cracks are appearing all over the coallition. McEntee had info not forwarded to Government, Clarkey sent Wolfey's name forward to Government having been involved in reviewing Wolfey's suitabliity for the post as Chairman of the JAAB and is now calling for his resignation, politely, while denying he is!! . The entire appointment process, no matter what view one might have on the post-appointment events, is undoubtedly incestuous, with people shteppin' in an' out agin' wearing various hats (or wigs as is their wont). He now has to go, having succeeded in knocking COVID off the headlines.