Clare Daly TD calls the Judiciary to account

[Will Yam]

There is indeed the principle of 'separation of powers' but that does not mean that the courts are unanswerable to the electorate or that the courts can make up the law based on a 'legal fiction'.

It was Lincoln who stated in his Gettysburg Address 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people'. He put the citizen right at the centre of the process of government, not the courts.

There are remedies if the courts make up the law.

But they don't include allowing Daly et al to interfere, much as she would like to.

[sic transit]

Because this wonderful State of ours still does not recognise that a family can be anything other than a married couple and their children.

Since the new legislation came in it appears that they do. It still doesn't explain what Ms Daly is up to unless she promised to ask the question on the Dail. As already commented there are probably better ways to do this.

[sic transit]

There is indeed the principle of 'separation of powers' but that does not mean that the courts are unanswerable to the electorate or that the courts can make up the law based on a 'legal fiction'.

It was Lincoln who stated in his Gettysburg Address 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people'. He put the citizen right at the centre of the process of government, not the courts.

What legal fiction is this? Decisions can be challenged legally all the way up to the Supreme Court if a case can be found. TBH you seem to be suggesting that there is some murky underworld in the judiciary that we the people need to put a stop to.

[ShoutingIsLeadership]

Since the new legislation came in it appears that they do. It still doesn't explain what Ms Daly is up to unless she promised to ask the question on the Dail. As already commented there are probably better ways to do this.

I don't recall any constitutional amendment to Article 41.3.1, which states that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

[ppcoyle]

And, of course, the way to do this is quite simple; if you think having it heard in camera is wrong, Judicially Review any attempt to have it heard in camera. There are enough people who will happily do it no foal, no fee; and there are people like FLAC and PILA who'll help out, or at least point you in the right direction.

That, of course, would not get headlines for Clare Daly, so she's not going to bother actually doing something that might help.

Surely the issue is not about a judicial review.

It is the much more fundamental one that she refers to of custom and practice in the family courts of ignoring the law and making it up as they go along. Is this not a legimate question for a TD to raise in the Dáil.

As you know when a family law case is heard in secret in the Circuit Court and then appealed to the secret family High Court it is not possible to then bring an appeal to the Supreme Court

[Diawlbach]

Quoting John Waters in the IT article above

So these would have been cases where there are no kids involved, and cohabiting couple bought a house together. Because it is in-camera, does this mean that it is very hard to establish a precedent of previous rulings byo other judges, (sorry if not correct phrase).

Without sounding thick here, what sector of society / gender is getting shafted here?

We know family law courts are cruel to fathers.

As this is Clare Daly, I'm wondering what her angle or percieved abuse is here.

Can you refuse to have something heard in Camera? is there an advantage in it being public?

The obvious question which then arise is - how do you know?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying we need a bit more rigour than, "Sure, everyone knows..."

[damus]

The CC is right, this is a matter for the courts not the Oireachtas.

If she wished to help, she should discuss this with the parties who are aggrieved and support them in a legal challenge.

They could pay for those legal challenges out of the party fund they will manage to amass from only claiming the AIW.

[ShoutingIsLeadership]

And, of course, the way to do this is quite simple; if you think having it heard in camera is wrong, Judicially Review any attempt to have it heard in camera. There are enough people who will happily do it no foal, no fee; and there are people like FLAC and PILA who'll help out, or at least point you in the right direction.

That, of course, would not get headlines for Clare Daly, so she's not going to bother actually doing something that might help.

It is not that simple. While a couple or a part of a couple might not want to have the case heard in camera, they might also not want the publicity which would accompany them being some sort of test case in court.

[sic transit]

I don't recall any constitutional amendment to Article 41.3.1, which states that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack."

Not disputing the constitution but does this to your knowledge preclude other "families" from going to family courts?

[sic transit]

It is not that simple. While a couple or a part of a couple might not want to have the case heard in camera, they might also not want the publicity which would accompany them being some sort of test case in court.

If the combined estate is above a certain limit it has to go to a higher court anyway.