Aristotle became the latest high-profile figure to be dragged into the O'Flaherty nomination controversy yesterday, as the judges hearing Denis Riordan's Supreme Court appeal grappled with the meaning of equality.
The Greek philosopher defined equality as meaning that things alike should be treated alike, while things unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unalikeness.
So, with Mr Riordan claiming his right to equal treatment under Article 40 of the Constitution had been infringed by the Government's failure to advertise the European Investment Bank job publicly, counsel for the State pleaded the "Aristotelian" argument. Treating everybody equally to this extent "would be a form of inequality", Mr James O'Reilly SC said. To which Ms Justice McGuinness replied that "however Aristotelian we may be", she didn't see how relevant this was to the question of whether the Government should have advertised the £147,000-a-year job.
It was all Greek to the small public gallery present for the Limerick lecturer's latest attempt to thwart the nomination.
A cause celebre Mr Riordan may be in some quarters, but Supreme Court appeals are not the stuff to quicken the blood, and two women at the back of the court fell asleep as the afternoon wore on.
It would have worn on longer had the judges not made clear their impatience with Mr Riordan's repetitions earlier in the day.
"I'm not criticising you, because you're not used to the discipline of making written submissions," said the Chief Justice before lunch, urging the lecturer - who represented himself - to "proceed to the next point". When Mr Riordan proceeded to what he thought was the next point, Mr Justice Keane interrupted again: "But that's the same point. We know all that." And the process was repeated twice before the appellant cut to a brief summary of his case, that he had the same right as any citizen to apply for the EIB job and the Government had not vindicated that right.
But replying for the State, Mr O'Reilly contended that there was no "inchoate right" under Article 40 to justify the case Mr Riordan was making. Indeed, all legal authorities pointed "in the other direction".
Where a citizen sought to impugn a decision made by government he had to have "substantial grounds," said Mr O'Reilly, even as he acknowledged the insubstantiality of the Government's decision in this case: a recommendation to the EIB which had no legal standing and could be rejected by the bank.
"A sort of a non-decision," joked a voice from the judges' bench. "A will of the wisp," joked Mr O'Reilly.
More seriously, he said there had to be a "very high threshold" of concern for the courts to intervene in Government decision-making. And when the judges offered a number of examples of situations were such concern might exist, Mr O'Reilly reached for a tailoring metaphor to voice his discomfort. "To hang the cloak of fundamental rights on that would be an uneasy fit," he said.
The wig of self-representational rights had been an uneasy fit on Mr Riordan's head earlier in the day. But he was concision itself when, at the end of his replying comments, he was asked to establish formally his locus standi, or reason for being in court, and returned to the basic facts about the EIB job as he saw them.
It paid £147,000 a year and yet apparently demanded no particular experience, he said.
"If I knew this job was available, I would have applied for it. The salary is such, the pension is such, the period of service is such, that I would have wanted that job."