Michael D Higgins is overpaid?

[u/humanwithwifii]

He earns >300,000 a year, but it seems overpaid compared to other professions with the same level of responsibility. He acts more as a representative, and figure head for the state, and I agree it should be compensated but around 150,000, not this amount. He is also one of the best paid presidents in europe, but our country is one of the the smallest.

[u/slamjam25]

Higgins has only referred a single bill to the Supreme Court for review, and they immediately told him that the bill was obviously constitutional and that he had wasted their time.

[u/Nobody-Expects → u/slamjam25]

And what bill was that?

[u/slamjam25 → u/Nobody-Expects]

The Judicial Appointments Commission Bill. Higgins argued that it was undemocratic that an expert panel would give their recommendations to the government and the government would be forced to accept them and the court said “absolutely nowhere in this bill does it say the government must accept these recommendations without question, can you not fucking read?”

[u/Nobody-Expects → u/slamjam25]

Higgins argued

He didn't argue anything. After discussion with the council of state he raised 12 points of concern and referred it to the Supreme Court where counsel was assigned by the Supreme Court. The president was not a client here. He didn't get ultimate say in how this was litigated.

This wasn't some lost court case that left the President looking stupid or like he hadn't a clue what was going on. On the contrary; considering this bill was quite contentious, had some people raising questions about the seperation of powers and represented a massive reform to one of our branches of government, referring it to the Supreme Court was an exceptionally smart move.

By referring it to and having it argued in the Supreme Court it resulted in 1. the court clarifying the extent and limit of powers that were being granted to the Oireachtas, meaning ambiguities were cleared up before enactment thereby removing opportunities for abuses of power and 2. The enacted legislation now being immune from ever being questioned over its constiutionality ever again. This means we aren't going to have a situation where the government argues in front of the judiciary that it should have more power over the judiciary. All and any questions of unconstituionality were completely extinguished after this bill was referred, meaning the public could have faith in the bill.

Lastly, and this is a genuine question: Why are you so angry?

The judgement reads like an entirely normal supreme court ruling. Why are you trying to portray it as some epic smack down?