This essay has to do with the Supreme Court of the sweet-smelling United States of America.  I have been a court watcher for many years and I have come to the conclusion that no one should ever contend that the Supreme Court is being worked to death.  Quite the opposite is true.
The Supreme Court seems to set its own schedule, which includes three months of vacation during the summertime.  When the Soo-premes meet in session, it starts in the early part of October and ends in the month of the following June.  For that reason, I would assume that no one could ever truthfully claim that the Supreme Court was being worked to death.  When they are meeting, the Supremes take only 80 cases or thereabouts to settle during a term.   This means that thousands of cases of law suits never make it to the top level.  This does not seem to bother the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now here is a case that should have been brushed aside and never thought of again.  When the Supreme Court ended its session last Thursday, it rendered a verdict in a case that was totally undeserving of its attention.  But be that as it may, the Soo-premes waded right in and let the world know that justice prevails here in the United States.
So that no one can accuse me of bias, I am going to read into this record what The Washington Post had to say about this particular verdict.  (Published 6-28-12, written by Michael Ruane and Robert Barnes.):

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to falsely claim being awarded a top military honor, saying the law smacked of an Orwellian Truth Ministry and threatened free speech.
The court invalidated the Stolen Valor Act, under which a California man, Xavier Alvarez, 54, was convicted for claiming falsely in 2007 that he had been awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor.
But Alvarez’s attorneys convinced a lower court that his untruths were protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. And Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed in a 6 to 3 decision.
“Lying was his habit,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote of Alvarez. He “lied when he said that he played hockey for the Detroit Red Wings and that he once married a starlet from Mexico.”
And he lied “in announcing he held the … Medal of Honor,” Kennedy wrote. “None of this was true. For all the record shows … [the] statements were but a pathetic attempt to gain respect that eluded him.”
But they are not illegal, he concluded.

 
So it is obvious that Mr. Alvarez was a complete liar.  Even I, who has been known for being a champion BS artist, would never go so far as Alvarez did.  But can you imagine that the Supreme Court took up this case and let the others dangle out there into obscurity?  As I have said, the Supreme Court takes only about 80 cases each term for a determination.  I suspect that Mr. Alvarez was happy to avoid being classified as a felon.  But if you will pardon me for this thought, this case is the gnat that was adjudicated while the elephant went undecided.
Now look here, I am a realist aside from being a BS artist.  I understand that former soldiers may exaggerate their accomplishments from time to time.  But in this case, it is not clear that Mr. Alvarez ever served in the military.  But if he did, the Soo-premes have made it clear that lying about one’s record in the military has the approval of the Supreme Court of the United States.  When the Soo-premes elected to decide such a matter while ignoring thousands of other deserving decisions, it might cause some of us to demand our money back.
Now to be perfectly frank, this old soldier was unaware that there was a law entitled the Stolen Valor Act.  So I suspect that we all learned a little something because of the ruling by the Supreme Court.  Now if Mr. Alvarez got away with claiming that he had been awarded the Medal of Honor, are there any restrictions that would still warrant the attention of the Soo-premes?  Suppose that I were to claim that I was a presidential contender.  Do you think the Soo-premes would honor such a contention?  I don’t know.  And what would happen to tearful entreaties involving “alienation of affection suits?”
Well, as you can see, this old soldier understands those who may exaggerate their claims of battlefield valor.  But boy, oh boy, I could never imagine someone claiming to have been awarded the Medal of Honor.  In the Jewish language, there is a term, “chutzpah.”  But in claiming to have won the Medal of Honor, which was fallacious at best, we can say that “chutzpah” does not even come close to recognizing the self-exaggeration.
In the Supreme Court decision, there were three dissenters.  For all of their terms, I have never been in any great agreement with Samuel Alito, Anthony Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.  But in this case, I may concede that the dissenters might have a point.
E. E. CARR
July 4, 2012
Essay 673
 
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: I’m actually not clear on why Pop used the Soo-preme spelling here. I feel like it’s somewhat of a tossup between a joke that I’m missing, and him just being weird.  Other not-sure-if-puns include the phrase “Soo-premes waded in” but I feel like that one’s a stretch at best.
I can vouch for Pop’s claim that he is a BS expert. I think my favorite example is that he used to tell mom’s old boyfriends that he was a champion long-jumper. I suspect this was mainly to see how mom would deal with it in front of said boys. Like, when Pop claims that, does one run (and jump) with it, say “oh don’t worry about that, he just lies for no reason sometimes,” or what?  He was particularly good at messing with the man who would eventually become my father, who to his credit stuck around this weird-ass family long enough to do so.