Dr Laura Cahillane & Dr David Kenny WITH THE EXTRAORDINARY and unprecedented publication of the Chief Justice’s personal view that Judge Seamus Woulfe should resign from the Supreme Court, the question of Judge’s Woulfe’s continued tenure on the Court rests in two places: with Judge Woulfe himself, and in Leinster House.
In 1999, following a scandal known as the Sheedy Affair, the government announced it was considering moving impeachment motions for two judges alleged to have committed misconduct by intervening in the progress of a criminal case. Both judges resigned. There is a credible argument that the Oireachtas gets to determine this in the manner that it thinks fit; that is, misbehaviour is what the Oireachtas thinks is sufficient to remove a judge.
For example, in 1997, the Solicitor General of New Zealand advised that misbehaviour means ‘conduct that is [so] morally wrong and improper that it demonstrates a judge lacks the integrity to continue to exercise judicial office’. The Privy Council suggested that it was relevant if the conduct affected directly his ability to carry out the duties functions of the office, or adversely affected the view of others that he could carry them out; if it would be contrary to the administration of justice for the judge to remain in office; and if the office had been brought into disrepute by the actions of the judge.
This included, perhaps, a failure to understand and take responsibility for his actions, and his remarks about the government and other judges made to Judge Denham and revealed in the transcript.
Odd way of spelling 'Varadkar'
Time for The Journal to run a poll on how many people are interested in this story versus Varadkar's plight or the developing US election scandal.
Damn, I didn't know we had impeachment over here! What's over there -