Concerning John Paul Stevens' Authorship of "Shakespeare"'s Works

This Sunday, we have an unlikely coincidence of April 1 (and all that represents) with Easter, of which more anon. That seems a good omen for discussing matters which seem unlikely, prima facie, but could somehow be true. For example, could retired and super-duper-elderly Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, have written more matters of epic note than he lets on? How old is he, anyway? (How old is Dracula?)

In particular, we hear that JPS has opined on the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, claiming that the posh Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, is the real author of the plays, instead of that low-class dummy with an earring and an attitude, Billy Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. How do we know Stevens' opinion isn't some kind of sneaky diversion, though? Isn't Stevens practically old enough to have written the plays himself? That's right: Love's Labour's Lost, King Lear, and everything else, all penned by John Paul Stevens in his spare time!!

Critics may pooh-pooh this and say that Shakespeare lived centuries ago, and that there is no scintilla of evidence that Stevens wrote "Shakespeare"'s plays. But has lack of common sense stopped Stevens, or the Court, before?

I. Stevens: Kill the Second Amendment! Kill! KILL!!

After all, Stevens' recent mystical revelation from on high, that we should destroy the Second Amendment, is about as likely to become reality as is the discovery that Stevens himself wrote Shakey's plays. Even "flaming liberal" Elizabeth Wydra practically shoots Stevens' head off for making his whacky suggestion that we slaughter the sacred 2nd. (Why don't we get rid of that pesky Third Amendment, instead, if you think there're too many amendments? --Or why not whack the whole Bill of Rights, while you're at it??)

II. John Paul Stevens May Really Also Be a Polish Pope, Revolutionary War Hero, Led Zeppelin Member, French Existentialist, and/or Two of the Beatles

In fact, if you can believe that we should drop the Second Amendment like Chance the Rapper dropping the mic, or that JPS wrote Hamlet during his spare time, what can't you believe?

Maybe, for example, John Paul Stevens was not just a lawyer and Justice, but also various other similarly-named people at the same time (why not? was JPS ever seen in the same room at the same time as any of the following people??):

--Pope John Paul II, the greatest Polish pope ever;

--John Paul Jones of the American Revolution;

--John Paul Jones, bass and keyboard for Led Zeppelin;

--Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir's wingman among French existentialists; and/or

--John Lennon AND Paul McCartney of the Beatles.

Okay, Lennon and McCartney were seen together on stage, so it'd be hard for Stevens to be both of them at the same time. But after Paul secretly died (and who can doubt that Paul is dead?), he could have been surreptitiously replaced by John Paul Stevens. A little makeup can go a long way in hiding old-age wrinkles, even onstage...

III. The Supreme Court Has Never Been Big on Factual Reality: Dred Scott, etc.

After all, the Court may never have endorsed John Paul Stevens as either author of Shakespeare's plays, or as a replacement for Paul McCartney, but they have done things that are arguably even more ridiculous.

For example, our present Chief Justice, John Roberts, infamously forgot to administer the presidential oath to Barack Obama correctly in 2009 (though Obama himself muffed things up too). ...Or did they really forget? Maybe it was an elaborate Harvard Law frat prank. In any case, what are we paying these people for if they make these sorts of public faux pas?

More SCOTUS muck-ups abound. In good old Marbury v. Madisonitself, did the Court give itself power of judicial review out of nowhere? If the Court lacked jurisdiction, should other substantial issues have been considered? Since John Marshall was acting Secretary of State, and his bro James Marshall was delivering some of the relevant commissions, should John have recused himself? So, has Court power been built on a lie since 1803? (!)

Speaking of jurisdiction gone crazy,Dred Scott v. Sandford, besides being an insane racist decision, showed the Court again deciding it had no jurisdiction, but still going on to decide substantive issues such as that African Americans had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect". Ouch. "Will these fools never learn?"

Mark Joseph Stern openly noted at Slate, in Everything but the Truth: Why does the Supreme Court use made-up facts?, that Court opinions sometimes have a very tangential relationship to reality. So, the Noble Nine, sadly enough, are sometimes little better than the garden-variety crazy judge such as the one mentioned in the recent story Suffolk County district judge apologizes, admits he's serial underwear stealer. (!!)

Informed opinion tells us, though, that the Court still deserves great respect, since they are not fools and asses more than 99% of the time. (Maybe 98%, some generous critics think.)

Conclusion: The Facts Is Where It's At--Per John Paul Shakespeare

Of course, since this is April, 1, readers may take what the author has said about Stevens and Shakespeare (or anything else) cum grano salis. But, back to the topic of Easter vis-à-vis April Fools' Day: some might say that Jesus pulled the greatest "April Fools' prank" in history by dying and then coming back to life. How do you top that? If you believe it happened, it is pretty hard to top.

In religion, one may have faith, e.g., in the Nazarene's resurrection. The rest of the time, though, "In God we trust, but all others pay cash." In other words, folks, especially lawyers, should remember, PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACTS, AND DRAW REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS FROM THEM.

After all, as John Paul Stevens noted when he wrote Measure for Measureback in the 17th Century: “Truth is truth to the end of reckoning.” --By the way: Look down, your shoe's untied!

(Not cross-posted at Boyle's Laws: but you can check out the Elmer Bernstein/Heavy Metal tribute there, among other things.)