The proposal to impeach Judge Brian Curtin may yet end up in court following the receipt of three letters from the judge yesterday.
These included one, brief, letter to the Government saying that Judge Curtin was dealing directly with the Houses of the Oireachtas, and lengthy letters to the chairs of each House outlining procedural and legal difficulties.
The whole issue of the extent to which the actions of the Oireachtas can be examined by the courts is a difficult one, according to legal sources.
However, the courts had no difficulty in over-ruling the work of a committee of the Oireachtas, set up to examine the shooting of John Carthy in Abbeylara.
The work of that committee was successfully challenged in the Supreme Court by members of the Garda Emergency Response Unit. One of their senior counsel was Mr John Rogers SC, now a member of Judge Curtin's legal team. The Abbeylara judgment related to possible findings of fact that might reflect on the good names of people who were not members of the Oireachtas, and the court found the Oireachtas committee did not have the power to make such findings.
The Oireachtas is given the right to hear a motion for the impeachment of a member of the judiciary, so its work in this case is different.
This means that any court challenge here is likely to be centred on procedures, rather than on the substance of the charges being laid and the right of the Oireachtas to hear them. That right is acknowledged by the judge.
But the courts have shown in the past that, when a person's constitutional rights are at stake, they consider they have a duty to uphold them, even against the Oireachtas.
Three resolutions must be laid before the Dáil and the Seanad vote, before an Oireachtas inquiry can begin, though only two must be accepted immediately.
The first motion will lay out the case against the judge, and seek his removal from office, but it will not need to be voted upon until the inquiry has actually completed its work.
The other two motions will set down both the terms of reference to be followed by the seven-strong committee, and its membership.
However, questions remain about the powers of this committee. It is unclear whether it can collect evidence, call witnesses and cross-examine them. It is also unclear who will have the right to legal representation before it.