Today, in response to an op-ed in the Daily Mail in which Iain “Bit of a thicky” Duncan Smith pushed Hanlon’s Razor to its limit with his “interpretation” of the Supreme Court proceedings, I published a series of tweets. They have proved, contrary to expectation, common sense and decency, to be quite popular, and I have had several requests to collate them in a blogpost. So for those who so wish, here I do. For those who aren’t fussed or have already seen, sorry for the diversion and have a nice day.
1. It is hard to know where to start with this litany of stupid from the dissembling IDS, but let’s try. https://t.co/sdE21R7kTn
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
2. “Self-styled legal commentators pontificating” – Which IDS is not, of course.
“Watching paint dry” – It’s a court case, not a circus. pic.twitter.com/kxmtzJ5pz4
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
3. That is not the question. It is not in dispute that Parliament is sovereign. He misunderstands the entire premise of the case. pic.twitter.com/xnxGDUycKW
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
4. There’s no question of judges “superseding” the wishes of MPs. The opposite – judges will decide whether wishes of MPs shd override govt. pic.twitter.com/SjptDX1wSp
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
5. The government’s own lawyers agreed that there was no possible perception of bias. This was on day 1 of those “boring” proceedings. pic.twitter.com/ppeokonUPh
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
6. It is real anger at gutter attempts to smear judges and undermine judicial independence for political gain. It is beneath contempt. pic.twitter.com/t8Rip8KUKW
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
7. IT’S NOT AS IF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IS A “CENTURIES OLD EDIFICE THAT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME”??!?!?!
I can’t even. Good grief. pic.twitter.com/PJIGkaxpCf
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
8. IDS on the creation of Supreme Court. I just thank god we now have IDS to offer us the “thoughtful debate” on the role of the judiciary. pic.twitter.com/k5DthJE7yO
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
9. A nice broad assertion entirely unsupported by evidence, there. “There are more judges making personal/political decisions cos I say so.” pic.twitter.com/QAHkan1KKG
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
10. Well OF COURSE the Human Rights Act is to blame. Why wouldn’t it be? After all, the courts NEVER interpreted constitutional law pre-1998 pic.twitter.com/Js8BlTKYQJ
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
11. Then Parliamentary sovereignty will have prevailed. Which is exactly what you want, right? pic.twitter.com/rv0RSZ65ZK
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
12. No. The judges will have interpreted the law. What happens thereafter politically is none of their concern. pic.twitter.com/zeYCMk2ONb
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
13. It is clearly pertinent to know about judges’ sexuality and fencing pursuits, is that your argument? pic.twitter.com/sV37JhSWwd
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
14. Your entire argument is an allegation that the court is not independent. How can this be anything OTHER than an attack on independence? pic.twitter.com/5EKKa7IF47
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
15. If you do not understand the chasm between the UK and US constitutions, I can’t help you in a tweet. Go read a book. Then try again. pic.twitter.com/zanAzlZwOJ
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
16. The way to depoliticise the judges is to make them directly answerable to people like you. That’s your argument? pic.twitter.com/pTl7IRYg3h
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
17. Finally, an open challenge – what question would you as an MP ask at a confirmation hearing that would be both relevant and apolitical?
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 7, 2016
Update: If you would like to see the above tweets set in a video to music – and, frankly, who wouldn’t? – see here from The Huffington Post.
Excellent responses, all completely valid
You have stuck a blow on behalf of so many people who have suffered at the hands of this man and exposed his ignorance of yet another matter he has the arrogance to pontificate upon. Not everyone of those who have suffered have the means to take him on and render him so helpless. Thank you.
Bravo. The only thing that’s really worrying is the faint possibility that he might *not* be that stupid – in which case he’s deliberately making claims that are inflammatory, illogical, misleading and false.
Jesus, I’m a conservative by nature, and a Conservative, but Smith is either dumber’n a sack of hoe handles or evil or both.