August 4, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

In this week’s letter I will clean up my notes on the judiciary before I start a series on investing next week. For several millennia, human societies have struggled to figure out the how and the who of lawmaking. How to construct a rule whose language is clear enough to be understood but flexible enough to apply to varying circumstances? Who will enforce the rules? How will they be enforced?

Let me start with a real story from my childhood. My younger brother and I were only one and a half years apart in age and were quite competitive. Tired of listening to my brother and I argue over the rules of various card games we played, our dad bought us a book called Hoyle’s Official Book of Games. This resolved some of our disputes, but still we argued over the interpretation of the rules. If a rule in Rummy requires a player to play a card once they have touched it, how to interpret the word “touch?” If a gust of wind threatens to toss a few cards from the deck, can a player reach out to prevent that without having to take that card? What if a player grazes the card with their elbow while reaching for a drink?

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (2024) wrote that many cases the court decides can hinge on the interpretation of one or two words in a law. In the Heller decision on the Second Amendment, the majority and dissenting justices wrote 80 pages of argument over the meaning of “bear arms” in the Second Amendment. He quotes the example of a railroad that required passengers to pay full fare for each animal they brought on board. When a biology teacher brought a number of snails on the train for a class, the conductor charged the teacher a fare for the snails. When the teacher complained that the rule was meant for pets, the conductor explained that the rule used the word “animals,” not “pets.” Snails are animals.

If you were a judge, how would you rule? Breyer’s story raises the question: what if the rule said, “domestic animals?” What does the term “domestic” specify regarding animals? An animal related to a person’s home or family. Snails can be kept at home so even this change in the rule could be interpreted to include snails. The most important symbol in mathematics is the equals sign. There are specific rules of valid operations on either side of an equals sign. Plain language has no equals sign. For centuries, French was the language of diplomacy. The language has fewer words, which conveniently left agreements between diplomats open to interpretation.

If the truth were an island, it would be stained with the blood of millions. Throughout history, kings, philosophers and countries have laid claim to and fought over the truth. In 17^th century Britain, a civil war erupted between monarchists, those loyal to the king and the power of the king, and Parliamentarians, those loyal to the Parliament as representatives of the people’s will. Robert Filmer, a noted monarchist, argued that the right to property comes from God through the King. John Locke argued that the right to property comes directly from God. When God drove Adam and Eve out of the garden, He told the couple they would have to work the land for their survival. Therefore, those who cultivate the land add value to the land and “thereby makes it his property” (PDF link, p. 116). The state merely recognizes that title. In later centuries, the American colonists would use this reasoning to deny that Indians had any right to the land because they did not cultivate it.

Journalists often make claims on the truth. Matthew Yglesias wrote on his Substack “this is journalism, and we owe a duty of truth to our audience.” He referred to “journalists’ obligations of candor,” but truth and candor, or honesty, are different. In its 1964 decision New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that statements about public officials were not subject to claims of libel unless they were shown to be made with “actual malice” and a disregard for the truth. That is a standard of candor, not truth.

The American Bar Association states that lawyers “must be honest, but they don’t have to be truthful.” They distinguish between being honest and being truthful. “A defense lawyer has no obligation to actively present the truth.” Being honest requires only that “Counsel may not deliberately mislead the court.” A lawyer who serves their client’s interest by making a false representation to the court risks disbarment. Rudy Guiliani was recently disbarred for making deliberate misrepresentations to further Trump’s claims of a stolen election.

A witness, on the other hand, must vow to “tell the whole truth” to the court. Politicians take no such vow, nor do they pledge a vow of candor, to be honest with the public. They take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies,” a vague statement open to wide interpretation. It is up to the public to judge their lies, and to assess the importance of those lies. Abraham Lincoln supposedly claimed that all the people could not be fooled all the time, but a politician does not have to meet that high bar. They only need to fool enough of their constituents to get re-elected.

Should Congress set minimum years of service as a judge for Supreme Court nominees? Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Kagan and Thomas had the fewest years on the bench before joining the Court. I will leave the details and links in the footnotes. I have many more notes after reading Breyer’s recent book, but I will close this for now. Next week, I hope to present some perspective on investing in plain language without equations.

///////////////////

Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash

Keywords: rules, honesty

Breyer, S. G. (2024). Reading the constitution: Why I chose pragmatism, not textualism. Simon & Schuster.

The link to the justices’ bios is here. Chief Justice John Roberts served as an Appeals Court judge for only 2 years before becoming Chief Justice. Justice Clarence Thomas – one year. Justice Samuel Alito – 16 years. Justice Elena Kagan had no prior judge experience. Justice Sonia Sotomayor – 16 years. Justice Neil Gorsuch – 10 years on an appeals court.. Justice Brett Kavanaugh – 12 years. Justice Amy Coney Barrett – 3 years. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – 9 years.