Jim Jordan tears into credibility of Supreme Court Alito whistleblower in explosive hearing

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the House Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, tore into a former anti-abortion leader who alleged he was informed in advance about the outcome of a 2014 Supreme Court ruling Thursday, casting serious doubt on the whistleblower's allegations that the information came from Justice Samuel Alito.

Jordan sought to cast doubt on testimony by the Rev. Rob Schenck, a former anti-abortion activist who said he became privy to the outcome of an eight-year-old high court opinion in 2014 by a couple close with Alito three weeks before it was released to the public.

Schenck told the committee about his previous effort to recruit conservative Christian couples to serve as "stealth missionaries" to "bolster" Republican-appointed justices' views on matters related to anti-abortion causes. His efforts took place years before Alito wrote the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion this summer that overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that was signaled to the nation by the leak of a draft opinion in early May.

“Not one hearing about the real leak, but here we are having a hearing on the fake leak," Jordan said, frustrated by committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler's (D-NY) decision to bring Schenck to testify.

But rather than focusing on Schenck's allegations about the 2014 opinion, the Ohio Republican ultimately convinced Schenck to admit that some details from a book he wrote in 2018 about the high court were inaccurate.

Jordan quoted from a large poster board displaying the words from Schenck's book, which referenced his brother, Paul, who is also a reverend.

"It had been a minor victory when we persuaded the court that 'reverend' should remain before Paul's name, even though we had been told repeatedly that legal briefs never included such titles," Jordan read from Schenck's book.

However, Jordan also read from the Supreme Court transcript of the court case referenced in Schenck's book, confirming that former Chief Justice William Rehnquist never referred to Schenck's brother as "reverend" despite the book noting that detail prompted Schenck to "wink" at his brother.

“You got the key detail wrong, and now you remember an additional detail,” Jordan said after Schenck clarified that the detail may have been inaccurate. "We’re supposed to take your word over Justice Alito’s word?" Jordan asked.

"You said you winked because they included 'reverend' in the title, and the transcript says Mr. Rehnquist didn't," Jordan added.

"Perhaps not," Schenck conceded.

"One thing I've learned: People who mislead folks on small things mislead them on big things," Jordan said later during the interrogation.

Schenck was a witness at the hearing due to a letter he wrote to current Chief Justice John Roberts earlier this year. He wrote that before the high court handed down its 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, he had been contacted by one of his organization's donors who had dined at the home of Alito, who had authored the case, and his wife.

Schenck claims the donor learned the outcome of the case and later told him about it. Alito has denied said allegations, as well as a woman who was part of the dinner, and the Supreme Court's counsel has said there's "nothing to suggest" the justice violated any ethics standards.

Last month, the New York Times published Schenck's account. Politico later reported the outlet spent several months attempting to corroborate his claims and was "unable to locate anyone who heard about the decision directly from either Alito or his wife before its release at the end of June 2014."

"You know what? You can lie in a book. That's not a crime," Jordan said. "You can lie to the New York Times. That's not a crime. But when you come in front of Congress, and you say things that are not true, you're not allowed to do that."

Toward the beginning of the hearing, Schenck described his agenda for the influence campaign he called “Operation Higher Court.”

“Our overarching goals were to gain insight into the conservative justices’ thinking and to shore up their resolve to render solid, unapologetic opinions,” Schenck said.

Nadler and other Democratic members said Schenck’s allegations proved a need to pass legislation to impose a binding ethics code on the high court.

"Supreme Court justices cannot self-police their own ethics, and we shouldn’t expect them to," Nadler said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/jim-jordan-tears-into-credibility-of-supreme-court-alito-whistleblower