The U.S. Government Lies to the Supreme Court - If You Let Them...They Will

“In February, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to FISA Amendments Act (FAA) surveillance programs brought by Amnesty International on standing grounds.  The Supreme Court, agreeing with the government that since Amnesty International could not prove that it was the victim surveillance at the time, it had no right to sue. That 5-4 decision at least partially relied on an argument made by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. that while Amnesty International did not have grounds to sue, others might because ‘the government must provide advance notice of its intent to use information obtained or derived’ from the laws. In fact, the Supreme Court mirrors that language fairly explicitly in its ruling, saying that ‘if the government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from’ surveillance authorized by FAA ’in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition.’"  - Washington Post 

Let us accept that this report is accurate.  It is supported by things like transcripts and other Court records, so I feel pretty safe in assuming it is true, especially the parts that were written in the Supreme Court Opinion.  The analysis of what happened is, in my opinion, truly horrifying! 

There are only two ways to explain what happened, neither of which are good.  The Solicitor General of the United States stood up in front of the Justices of the Supreme Court and lied to them.  He knew the truth and deliberately and knowingly lied to the Court.  The second option is that the Justice Department of the United States knowingly and deliberately lied to the Solicitor General and he, in turn, represented it the Supreme Court believing it to be true.  What we have is merely a choice of who in the government lied to whom. 

It is a platitude that control of information is perfect control.  If I control the information about anything, I completely control the outcome, for example, if I leak information that a mega-billionaire is going to make an offer to buy up the stock of a company, I will drive that company’s stock price higher.  Look what happened when the Fed implied it was going to stop Quantitative Easing (QE).  The stock market started to drop precipitously.  When they said they were not going to stop the program, the stock market stabilized and recovered.  It was all based on information. 

The Supremes are no different; if you lie to them and make misrepresentations to them, you can control the outcome of whatever case is before them.  This is obvious.  The most serious problem is that the government of the US appears to be willing to lie to the Supremes.  I am sure this is nothing new, they just never got caught red-handed before, I guess.  Another problem is the fact that there do not appear to be any consequences.  I have a friend that has adopted what I shall call a life truth; “If you let them, they will.”  He had a sign carved in wood with these words and it hangs in his office.  I have someone making me a copy of it for my own study, because the words are so incredibly right in so many situations, the Supreme Court included. 

You have to understand the phrase in its two-part form.  It is not just that people will do bad things, you have to let them.  Try putting up “No Trespassing” signs on a piece of property without a fence around it.  People will ignore the signs; they will trespass because you have done nothing to prevent them from doing so.  If they have to climb over a fence, most will think twice, a few will do it anyway, but at least you made an effort to prevent them.

 

 

 

If you allow people, in this case the government, to lie to the Supreme Court and suffer no consequences, is there any incentive not to lie to them?  I would respond, “No, you let them!”  I am probably naive, but if I were the Supreme Court, I would be having U.S. Marshalls serving Rules to Show Cause Why the Solicitor General and/or the Justice Department Should Not Be Held in Contempt.   If the Solicitor General points his finger back at the Justice Department, then send those Rules to Show Cause to the Justice Department.  Let the finger-pointing begin.   At the risk of sounding like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling, I believe the integrity of the Justice System is at stake. 

I know I am naïve because the Supreme Court has tried and held someone (actually a group of people) only once.  That was in 1909 in U.S. vs. Shipp, and it took a Sheriff defying the Court to the extent that a black man for whom the Supreme Court had issued a stay of execution was lynched with the cooperation of the Sheriff. 

I have spoken to others, some of whom are lawyers, and they believe the Supremes will be taking a very harsh, confrontational attitude toward the Solicitor General during future oral arguments before them.  Basically, they may stop him at the beginning of his argument and ask him, “Tell us why we should believe a word you say to us, given your previous argument(s) based on falsehoods.”  While this will clearly embarrass the Solicitor General, I am not sure that is enough in this case.  Either the Solicitor General got caught with his pants down around his ankles or the Justice Department did. Saying, Look their pants are down” is not enough.  I think they should be called to account legally, just like any citizen would be required to do if they perjured themselves in Court. 

The government holds citizens that are interviewed by Federal Officers to a standard of truth.  If a citizen lies to the FBI, for example, there is a crime with which they can be charged for lying to an FBI Agent.  The Federal Government has taken this to the extreme of prosecuting a person with lying to Federal Agents when they were asked if they committed a crime and they said “No.”  Yet, we will not hold the Justice Department or Solicitor General to the same exacting standard.  In this respect, I am pretty sure the Judicial System is pretty much broke.