A Liars Guide to Becoming a SCOTUS Justice
As taken from; “Brett Kavanaugh shows how to lie your way onto the U.S. Supreme Court” (azcentral.com), EJ Montini
The Sisters of St. Joseph, who rigorously guided me through parochial grade school, appear to have been misinformed during their considerable Bible studies on what, exactly, constitutes lies.
The nuns told us – and this was later backed up by several priests during my required weekly trips to the confessional – the Ninth Commandment, the one that goes:
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,”
includes all forms of lying.
In other words, should you choose to dodge a question in order not to tell the truth (as I was accused of doing more than once during my tutelage) you are lying.
Also, should you attempt to confuse the issue as a way of not expressing your true beliefs or intentions you are also lying.
And, in broader terms, whenever you decide to be evasive, cagey, vague, prevaricating or shifty you are, lying (‘essentialities’ removed for clarity).
The nuns told us, in God’s eyes, these rules applied to all people, but particularly to those who claim some affiliation with the Christian faith or its precepts.
What the good sisters did not know, apparently, was that an exception had been made for candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.
There must be.
Because otherwise the judges who most recently overturned Roe v. Wade would not have been appointed to the court in the first place.
Take Brett Kavanaugh, for example.
‘Stare decisis’ is Latin for . . . “to stand by things decided” or as the author says “ignore that.” My attorney friends would tell me the former. However the author’s version get the point across also.
“If the earlier decision has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make their decision in alignment with the previous court’s decision.” That is the Cornell University version.
During Brett’s confirmation hearings there was a lot of talk about “stare decisis.” It is a Latin phrase. Lawyers like to use Latin phrases to justify the high cost of law school.
In simple terms, “stare decisis” means “let things stand as they were decided.” It means that judges respect the decisions made by judges before them. Particularly if a specific issue has come before a court more than once and been affirmed.
Like, for example, Roe v. Wade, which had been affirmed several times.
At his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh called Roe an:
“important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.”
adding . . .
“Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors. So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered . . . ”
Barrett and Gorsuch fooled ’em, too
Likewise, Amy Coney Barrett said,
“What I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis, that if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis . . . .”
She also said,
“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world.”
Maybe Barrett woke up on the “right” side of the bed?
There is also Neil Gorsuch, who said Roe v. Wade
“is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”
“But that was yesterday and yesterday’s gone” (Chad and Jeremy “Yesterday’s Gone”). I guess we did not find our dream in him either.
They all fooled several senators, apparently. Or those senators are now pretending to be fooled.
Like Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who said of Kavanaugh,
“I feel misled.”
The consequences for lying? Nothing . . .
Notes from a conversation Collins had with Kavanaugh before his hearing has him saying,
“Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences.”
Granted this is the little old lady living on your block who gets upset when kids chalk messages on the sidewalk near her house.
Another was Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who said,
“I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans.”
Joe kind of mystifies me. He is always saying;
“If I can’t go back home and explain it, I can’t vote for it.”
He doesn’t trust Biden or other Democrats from what I heard and read. Yet he trusted Republican nominated SCOTUS Justices? Would Republicans break McConnell ranks and vote for a Democrat? Then too maybe there is no “splaining” to do back in West Virgina? A state ranked 48th in the nation for economic conditions, 49th for healthcare, a declining population, 3rd oldest population, and not a city over 60,000 people.
“Almost Heaven” my . . . but that heaven is just on Joe’s house boat where he can lecture those below. Pretty good at making stuff up and telling stories as he did about opioids.
Liars will be liars and the legal profession spawns quite a few of them.
I wonder if we need to consult religious or legal authorities to know what “lying” is. It is obvious the lawyers lie by carefully excluding the truth, the whole truth,,,from what they say, or allow witnesses to say. It is also obvious the all Politicians lie all the time. It’s their stock in trade, to be “fair” they have to lie bcause their constituents don’t know anything and if they didn’t lie they couldn’t get elected, or if elected they could never do “the right thing” because the people would demand the wrong thing that makes the feel good.
But we all know that a lie is anything omeone says to mislead us to our harm. even if every single word they say is the “strict” truth.
I don’t think there is a chance of impeaching, or jailing, the Justices on the ground of lying under oath. All of their lies fall into the “you have to read carefully to know exactly what i was saying and not what i was carefully saying to mislead you” category. But didn’t we all, somehow, at the time, know they were lying? Don’t we know that evn now, in their “decision” (rationalization) they are lying? at least they know they are chosing words to make the worse case seem like the best case…which is not “lying” but only “sophistry” which is an art they have taught in schools since the ancient greeks discovered the value of lying to people…in a democracy, but also seemingly necessary in a dictatorship.
I don’t think we need to blame religion for inventing this. It may be that, like the Bill of Rights, we have to thank them for being among the first to point out there was such a thing as “lying” and that it was, on the whole, not good for us.