Rev. Robert Schenck was once deemed "not entirely credible" by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Daily Caller reports.
This is significant considering that Congressional Democrats last week attempted to use Schenck - a conservative-turned-progressive - as their star witness in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.
The hearing was titled, "Undue Influence: ‘Operation Higher Court’ and Politicking at SCOTUS."
Fox News explains:
Schenck was a witness at the hearing because of a letter he submitted to current Chief Justice John Roberts earlier this year. In it, he described how before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in 2014's Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, he was contacted by one of his organization's donors who had dinner at the home of Justice Samuel Alito, who authored opinion in that case. The donor, Schenck claimed, learned what the outcome of the case would be and told him about it.
In other words, the Democrats, here, attempted to use Schenck to prove the claim that Alito had once leaked a Supreme Court decision. Alito has denied the allegation.
It ought to be noted that this is all taking place in the context of the recent, unprecedented leak of the Supreme Court's draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case in which the court overturned the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, returning the controversial abortion issue to the states. The identity of the leaker remains to be discovered.
But, back to Schenck, it turns out that he is not the most credible witness - according to the Supreme Court.
The Daily Caller reports:
In the 1996 case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, Schenck’s twin brother, Paul Schenck, was at the center of a lawsuit regarding attempts to “provoke” an escort outside an abortion clinic . . . Schenck was a witness on his brother’s behalf.
The outlet, quoting court documents, continues:
"At the hearing, the Schencks insisted that they were not present at 1241 Main Street on December 29, 1990 as part of Project Rescue. Rather, they contend that they were there only to evangelize and preach. The Court finds, however, that their testimony in this regard is not credible."
If there were still any doubts about Schenck's credibility, those doubts were dispelled during the actual House Judiciary Committee hearing.
There, Schenck was confronted by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) about a passage from Schenck's book that reads:
With a single rap of the gavel, Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced: "We'll hear argument first this morning in Number 95-1056, Reverend Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders versus Pro-Choice Network of Western New York." Paul and I winked at each other, knowing we had made history with "Reverend" in his name.
Schenck, here, is trying to claim that this is a big deal because the court's practice was not to include something like "reverend" when reading someone's name. It turns out, though, that this was just false reporting - Rehnquist never said "reverend."
Jordan played the audio clip from the case in order to prove it.
That's the Democrats' star witness for you: not credible in the least. What else would you expect from the Democrats?