David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This situation is mercifully different from that in America where the retirement of Justice Kennedy has created a problem. There is no question but that Trump will stick in somebody with a very conservative background. We should be glad that this situation does not appear here.

The amendment, in subsection (1)(c), proposes that members "shall not perform any of those functions with a view to influencing the interpretation of the law or the Constitution by the courts." Senator McDowell asked what kind of people would put themselves forward. On the lay panel, they will be exactly the kind of people who want to influence the interpretation of law and the Constitution. These are exactly the kind of people we are going to get. I remember a judge stating quite clearly in open court that he was implementing the law of God, which was above the law of the State. I could provide the House with the name of the gentleman concerned but I will not do so, even though he is now securely in the embrace of Abraham's bosom.

If the amendment is accepted, section 7(2)(b) would read:

a person who applies for appointment as a lay member of the Commission—(i) shall not provide in connection with that application any information relating to the person’s political opinions or religious or philosophical beliefs,

That is fair enough. The next part reads:

(i) shall not be asked, and if asked shall not answer, any question relating to—

(I) the person’s political opinions or religious or philosophical beliefs, or

(II) the merits of any change in the interpretation of the law or the Constitution by the courts,

What I said about the earlier section applies here as well. The people who are intent on corrupting the system will not announce the fact. The background of judges up for appointment as Chief Justice, superior judges or just judges will be known. People will have a very good idea of whether they are right-wing, left-wing or centrist and what their religious beliefs are because some judges are not in the slightest bit backward about announcing these things in court. We may not know what position lay members of the public appointment service take but we will know it for judges and we will know what their views are in matters relating to legislation.

Putting a lay majority on this seems utterly daft. If such people are to have no connection with the law for the past 15 years, are we to assume they are completely ignorant of the law? They will do their damnedest to influence the interpretation of the law and that is one very good reason why there should not be a lay majority on this body.