The reverend who claims he received advance word of a Supreme Court decision lied in his book, it was revealed on Dec. 8.
Rev. Rob Schenck, a former pro-life leader who has since turned pro-abortion, claimed in his 2018 book “Costly Grace” that he and his brother successfully inserted the word reverend in a case title even though he'd been told that cases did not include such titles.
Schenck recounted winking at his brother during oral arguments for the case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, after the word reverend was read aloud by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist before the arguments began.
“Did Chief Justice Rehnquist really say that?” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wondered.
“I can’t say that I remember,” Schenck, called as a witness for a hearing by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, responded.
Jordan noted the specificity in the book and pressed the witness on the matter.
“I would have to go back and and review that,” Schenck said.
Jordan then revealed that his team already went back and reviewed the transcript from the hearing in question.
It showed that the word reverend was not included in the case title.
“In your book, you said it was a big deal—so much so that you winked at your brother. Did you wink at your brother?” Jordan asked.
“Yes,” Schenck said.
“What did you wink for if it wasn’t in the title?” Jordan asked.
“Because it was our case,” Schenck said.
“But you said you winked because they included reverend in the title, and the transcript says Mr. Rehnquist didn’t,” Jordan said.
“Perhaps not,” Schenck said.
“Perhaps? Did the court reporter get it wrong. Did he say it and the court reporter get it wrong?” Jordan wondered.
“Well, then ...” Schenck started.
Jordan then played an audio recording from the hearing in question, confirming that Schenck’s claim was false.
Jordan then asked again whether Schenck actually winked at his brother.
“I think I did. In fact, I think I actually hooked him,” Schenck said, motioning with his elbow.
Jordan said the lie further undercut Scheck’s story about the Supreme Court.
Schenck said this year that in 2014, before the court released its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, an activist named Gayle Wright informed him of how the court would be ruling. Wright said she received details from Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee with whom she and her husband had dined, according to Schenck.
Both Wright and Alito have denied the claims.
Reaction
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who has been pressuring the court to adopt an ethics code and working to expand the number of justices, denounced Jordan’s line of questioning.“Reverend Schenck, I have been in congress now for 16 years. Never have I witnessed the kind of savage attack that has been levied against you today,” Johnson said.
He asked if Schenck wanted to respond to Jordan. Schenck said that: “what matters to me is telling the truth” and “speaking candidly.”
Republicans said the false statement in the book undercut Schenck’s claims about the court.
Another Falsehood?
Mark Paoletta, a lawyer for Schaerr Jaffe and a former counsel to then-Vice President Mike Pence, said he reviewed a story that quoted Schenck as saying he had a prayer service with the Hobby Lobby attorneys before oral arguments, in the Supreme Court dining room.“I thought that was impossible to be having a prayer service on a day of oral argument in the dining room,” Paoletta, called by Republicans, said.
He noted that in the testimony Schenck submitted for the hearing, the supposed service was shifted to the Supreme Court’s cafeteria.
“He’s changed it completely from this behind the scenes sort of access of going into the dining room of the Supreme Court to the cafeteria which is literally open to the public when you’re there,” Paoletta said.
Lobbying Effort
Schenck was called to the hearing, titled “Undue Influence: Operation Higher Court and Politicking at SCOTUS,” by Democrats. Schenck described how he led an effort dubbed Operation Higher Court that accepted money from wealthy donors and focused on supporting conservative justices.“Our overarching goals were to gain insight into the conservative justices thinking and to shore up their resolve to render solid, unapologetic opinions, particularly against abortion,” Schenck said.
The effort included having people pray for the justices, sending greeting cards to them on special occassions, and hosting the justices for meals.
The purported leak of the Hobby Lobby decision stemmed from one of the arrangements, the reverend claimed.
“Throughout this ordeal, I have had to look deeply at what my cohorts and I did at the Supreme Court. I believe we pushed the boundaries of Christian ethics and compromised the high court’s promise to administer equal justice,” Schenck said.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that neither Schenck nor others “broke the rules” but said that highlighted the need for the court to adopt an ethics code.
All federal judges have to adhere to a written code of conduct, except for the Supreme Court justices. The court has said justices largely follow the code voluntarily.
If the court does not adopt an ethics code, Nadler and Johnson said, then Congress should impose one on them.
“The court either cannot or will not do what it is in its own best interest,” Johnson said. “Therefore, Congress must step in.”
