Last week while most Americans were fretting about the oil spill and a change in personnel, the Supreme Court of the United States was looking (askance) at Section 18 of the US Code and the results of their ruling may let some high profile prisoners walk free in the sunshine sooner than expected.
The broad implication of the decision might give Republicans more latitude in making reality gelatinous. Democrats hold themselves to a higher standard and won't be inclined to indulge in any chance to avail themselves of the possibility to find some wriggle room regarding the issue concerning an opportunity to "deprive another of the intangible right to honest services."
Some people might assume with all the laws about fraud and a certain religious commandment that there is, in any business dealing, an implicit right to honest services.
Wrong! Does the reverse corollary apply? Do Republicans now know that they have an intangible right to deliver dishonest service? When a Republican candidate for office says that he (hypothetical example) had the training to be an F-102 pilot does that mean that he actually was one?
We know a fellow whose identity revolves around his training and expertise in the martial arts. He will often drop the fact that he taught Bruce Lee into the conversation. Often it comes right after he has listed his qualifications for being an authority on the martial arts. He does not say what he taught Mr. Lee and so if he taught Bruce Lee to change a tire on his car and you leap to the assumption that the fellow taught Lee everything he knew about karate, the misperception is your fault because you have made an assumption.
Recently we picked up a bargain copy of the book which was the basis for the move "Catch Me If You Can." The book was a bit different from the movie hence the movie carried the tag line: "based on a true story."