The word "impeachment" has been used by commentators to describe the possible removal from office of Judge Brian Curtin. In fact the term has no relevance in this context. "Impeachment" simply means "charge".
Someone impeached has simply been charged with something which may lead to their removal from office. The process of removal is different.
In most constitutional systems, one house of parliament impeaches or charges an office holder, the charges being sometimes known as Articles of Impeachment.
The office holder is then put on trial in the other House.
As Bill Clinton showed, it is possible to be impeached and yet for the trial to fail and you to stay in office. In legal terms, the first house acts like the Director of Public Prosecutions in deciding whether to issue a charge.
The second then acts as a jury in deciding on the guilt of the defendant.
The case with Irish judges is fundamentally different, however. Crucially, it is not a case of one House charging, another one judging.
Both act as judges, as they both must pass a resolution calling for the removal of a judge from office.
So while the Constitution talks about judges being removed for stated misbehaviour, it doesn't indicate who charges the judge with it. Clearly, if both houses are juries, one cannot also be the impeacher.
It may fall to the Government.
In theory the President could do it by message to both houses.
Clearly while it is correct to talk about the "removal of a judge from office", it is wrong to talk in this instance of impeachment.
The impeachment mechanism is different, means something different, and in any case is not provided for at all in the removal of Irish judges.
Jim Duffy