Rep. Jim Jordan (R. Ohio) revealed Thursday the credibility and alleged leakage of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s 2014 court ruling.
What’s the background?
Rob Schenck, a former pro-life advocate, claims Alito informed a friend about the outcome of Burwell. Schenck made these allegations in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts last summer. The New York Times reported the story.
However, the Supreme Court has supported Alito who maintained his innocence. The mutual friend and other key figures in the story also denied that Alito had leaked the ruling. However, the Times couldn’t find any evidence to support Schenck’s claims.
What did Jordan do?
Jordan confronted Schenck during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court ethics. He demonstrated that he has a history in being untruthful.
Jordan reminded Schenck about a book he had written four years ago, after Jordan confirmed with Schenck his claims regarding Alito. Schenck also wrote in that book about a Supreme Court case involving his brother.
Jordan read a portion of the book. It says:
Chief Justice William Rehnquist made a simple announcement: “We’ll listen to argument first this morning in Number 95-1065 Reverend Paul Schenck vs. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York.” Paul and I smirked at one another, knowing that we had made history by using his “Reverend.” We had achieved a minor victory by convincing the court to remove “Rev.” Paul should be kept in his name, even though it was repeatedly stated that legal briefs do not include such titles. Paul understood that even though the justices might not see it that way our supporters and enemies needed to. “Reverend Paul Schenck,” made sure that the conflict could be viewed as a case of religious liberty and not about blocking clinics.
Jordan then reaffirmed his point.
“You felt it important that the title’reverend” be before Paul’s name? The congressman asked.
Schenck replied, “Because [the case] was a religious liberty matter and that would be clear that it fitted in that category.”
“Did Chief Justice Rehnquist really write that in the same way I read it from your book?” Jordan was the one to follow up.
Schenck was clearly shaken by the question and began to hedge.
He said, “Uhhh!” with a shakey voice. “I don’t remember that I can say.”
Jordan pointed out that Schenck was certain of minute details a few years back. Schenck acknowledged that he would need to review the matter again.
Jordan replied, “We did return, and I have the transcript right here.”
Jordan produced the court transcript in the Schenck case. This revealed that the then-Chief Justice Rehnquist had not called Schenck’s brother a “reverend”. Jordan also obtained audio from Rehnquist to confirm the accuracy of Jordan’s transcript. Jordan proved that Schenck had lied in his book.
Jordan shared this with Schenck: “One thing that I have learned is that people who mislead people on small things can mislead them about big things.”
“You can lie in books; it’s not a crime. It’s okay to lie to the New York Times. He exclaimed, “But when you stand in front of Congress and say things that aren’t true, you’re prohibited from doing that.” “You are not allowed to do that.”
