McCain's bill of particulars against activist judges was particularly unimpressive. He assailed one justice for stating "that he was basing a conclusion on 'my own experience.' " This was John Paul Stevens this year questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty -- and then, respecting the importance of precedent, voting with the majority to uphold lethal injection.
McCain quoted Stevens' confession that he has opinions as proof that Stevens is an activist. Judges are people. Stevens, however, ruled according to precedent and not his opinion proving that he is not an activist judge. McCain's claim is contradicted by Stevens' vote. It is not an exaggeration or a harsh judgment. It is a lie.
To remove the final conclusion following a line of reasoning is not just distorting the meaning of a statement by removing context. It is lying by removing context.