i know that some apointments to supreme court in the US have been controversial, due to the effect on the aboriton issue, which is very political. This has not happened in my system.

But if your arguement is that you do trust judges to independantly rule on matters of law, then i'm glad that you have correced my misconceptions about the american law system.

If on the other hand you're being an ass and don't think Irish Judges are independant as i have claimed, please state as much, maybe even providing some evidence instead of distracting the issue with your petty point scoring. I'd be happy to be proven wrong if i actually am, it would mean i had learned something new, though i feel maybe you're not mature enough to have an intelectual conversation, in which case you might aswell stop wasting my time.

Are you saying Article I courts are limited in subject matter? Because they're permanent - they are open for cases like Article III courts. So you must mean that they're "ad hoc" in that they deal with specific subject matter - first, that'd be an incorrect use of the term "ad hoc." Second, there are Article III courts that are limited by subject matter, too - the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, e.g.

Wow! Talk about a hijacked thread!

Are Irish judges government officials or private officials? Answer!

they are government appointments, I already said that.

Well then they're part of the government. That was the entire point I wanted to make.

@TMW: as much as a thread highjack as it may have been, i don't think there is anyone who thinks we shouldn't do something about psuedo-science - which mayan calendar rubbish qualifies as...

There are people who dispute how we should act. Its a pity we don't have the ability to split threads on this forum...

I really don't think this derail is going to go anywhere; it's almost resolved already. So I wouldn't even bother with another thread.

No, the government is composed of those elected officials who forming a majority/minority of all elected TDs group together and rule, with the President's approval.

Judges are appointed not elected.

You did a good job cruising Wikipedia to show that there are other courts made by Congress and that judges on those courts do not have the same protections which regular judges do, but you still said that good behavior wasn't a life term. Therefore I can only believe that you're hardly the expert you claim to be since that is a very basic truth.

You mean the Government of Ireland. But the government of Ireland also consists of officials like judges, who exert official power.

See the difference?

in Ireland at least...

"You did a good job cruising Wikipedia to show that there are other courts made by Congress and that judges on those courts do not have the same protections which regular judges do"

I could have cited Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System, but wikipedia is much more convenient for you. I mean, I didn't need convincing, because I know all of it, but I needed something quick and easy to show you. You get it now, right?

"but you still said that good behavior wasn't a life term. Therefore I can only believe that you're hardly the expert you claim to be since that is a very basic truth."

No less an authority than Frank Easterbrook, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has attempted to correct those who equate the two, so...I think I'm in good company.

Unless he's not an expert? :eek:

semantics, though perhaps i am guilt of just the same(really i just misunderstood your lack of clarity).

However my point was independant of the Government, and while i don't think it is an issue which the Government needs to do anything about this issue, it is entirely within my rights to bring a civil case against newspaper publishers.

And i am not a member of the government of ireland.

What was his argument? I'd like to see it. That's really the crux of the disagreement. I assumed these other courts were authorized under Article III like regular ones, and I gues sthey aren't. The life terms, however, I won't back down from.

Uh huh, but to receive and enforce a judgment, whom do you need? The government, right? Judges and agents of the government capable of enforcing judicial decisions. It's the Shelley v. Kraemer issue, really.

Invictus, here's an extended article (not by Judge Easterbrook, but it's all I got for now) that might help: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/438.pdf

Having just read the introduction, it sure looks to me like judges are only removed by impeachment from otherwise life terms, but that there is an argument that this is not necessarily the intent of the writers of the Constitution when they wrote it.

Unless there's much more I missed, it seems this is a theoretical method of removing judges, and has never happened.

Invictus, you said: "I think a government which thinks it has to protect its people from kooky information is much more damaging"

I think not that a Government should involve itself, merely that I as a private citizen should stop newspapers from publishing superstitions.

Acosmist thinks that because i would need government officials to enforce this opinion that i am being somehow illogical, or hypocritical.

or maybe he just said illogical... but i've managed to refine my point.

I was explaining the constitutional text, which says "good behaviour" rather than life tenure. This article supports my position that there is more than a semantic difference. Nowhere did I claim that anyone had removed an Article III judge other than through impeachment or, uh, death.

There is a difference, but in the absence of any other mechanism it's just an incredibly frustrating and obtuse exercise in semantics. You could have said that right away and saved all this masturbation.

you could have just been right

that would have saved some time too <_<

check your PM, Invictus

Invictus, i think we're agreed on something...

This is exactly why this is my favorite forum. I leave for 1/2 a day and this thread has merged into something completed unrelated to the OP's topic.

@ orathaic:

"The fact that newspapers are allowed to publish predictions based on people's star signs is a disgrace."

To briefly give my view on this.

I agree that horoscopes are 100 percent bullshit. How can so many people believe that your personality and your future are somehow affected by which month you were born in, or the postions of the planets? Jupiter is a huge ball of gas, for fuck's sake! It's position in the solar system has no effect on my mood, or whether I am going to have 'good' or 'bad' 'luck' today. How could it? It is one of the most nonsensical ideas I have ever come across and it genuinely saddens me that in this day and age so many people still believe this rubbish.

I think it is a disgrace that newspapers publish this bullshit. But then a lot of newspapers here in the UK, especially the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Sun are filled from cover-to-cover will bullshit, hysterical over-reactions to minor issues and absurd half-truths every day.

The government should not step in to stop the printing of horoscopes because this would be a freedom of speech issue, and I do believe in a free press despite my comments above.

I would be very, very interested to see what would happen if a private citizen took legal action against a newspaper on the basis that it was printing fraudulent information, as orathaic suggests. As far as I am aware this has never been attempted.

On the subject of Judges and their independence, as raised by Acosmist, I would say that here in the UK, the judiciary are largely independent of government. The appointment of judges is handled partly through the government though, which does pose questions. However, it is certainly expected of judges that they will be impartial, and in many cases it has been seen that a judge will interpret the law very differently from the government's interpretation, demonstrating that the judiciary is far from the puppet of the government.*

Acosmist seems to be of the opinion that anyone who is paid from public funds is a 'government employee'. However this cannot be true. In the UK for example, all Members of Parliament receive a salary from the taxpayer. This is true whether they are an MP from the governing party, or whether they are a member of the Opposition. The Opposition are certianly not part of the government - they spend most of their time attacking and opposing the government! Yet they would appear to fit Acosmist's definition of 'government employees' - thus I would argue this is a flawed definintion. - No offence Acosmist, you raise some good points, but I do beg to differ on this one.

*It is also an interesting point that within the UK, England and Scotland have completely different legal systems, where English Law is based on Common Law principles, and Scots Law is largely rooted in Civil Law as is the norm in most of the rest of Europe.

If someone can exert official power, he's part of the government. (lower-case, see?)

That has to be true, because government has a monopoly on force; if these people aren't members of the government, what justifies their unilateral exercise of force? Why should anyone not in privity with these people be forced to adhere to their commands?

Ive never gotten more than 50 people to reply to one of my messages, but more than 100 replied to this one.
if anyone was wondering i don't believe the world will end in 2012. i just wanted to see if their was anyone out there who did.