Sir, - If we are to believe everything we see, hear and read right now the decision of the Supreme Court in the Sinnott case has taken everyone by surprise, and the only dissenting voices are those of the seven Supreme Court judges.
Not so. I most definitely was not in the least surprised. On the contrary, had the decision been otherwise I would have been both surprised and shocked. Immediately on hearing the result I telephoned the RT╔ Today programme and recorded a message supporting the judges.
It is the duty of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution, which is exactly what the seven judges have done, and I congratulate them for their objectivity.
Judges do not have the right to re-write the Constitution, which is what the lower court did. Only the people can do that and then by referendum only.
As we have learned from very recent experience, referendums do not always come up with the results popularly expected of them, which is why we have, and must always have, a secret ballot.
Currently the Constitution declares that the State's responsibility for providing free education for all its citizens expires at the age of 18 years.
On the face of it, this seems both sensible and reasonable. If we wish to change that rule in any way then we must have a referendum so that the people who will have to fund the very heavy cost of any such change, can make the final decision.
Under no circumstances should we allow judges to be the final arbiters. At the very least that would be undemocratic.
So, let's have a referendum and let the people speak. By the time it comes around hard economic and financial considerations may well have replaced the wave of emotion and passion that the Sinnott case has engendered, and who knows what the result might be?
As I've already said, that is why we have a secret ballot. It could be very interesting. - Yours, etc.,
W. G. A. Scott, Friars Hill, Wicklow.