Supreme Court Justice References Kim Kardashian's Robbery, But His Words Are Rather Confusing
Ever since news broke about Kim Kardashian's armed robbery in Paris, the reality star has been in the spotlight — even more so than usual. Her rep confirmed that two men dressed as police officers robbed Kardashian at gunpoint on Sunday night. They reportedly stole more than $10 million of jewelry, as well as other personal belongings. While the details sound traumatic, there are conspiracy theories out there that it was a publicity stunt. And now, even a Supreme Court Justice has weighed in. In an entirely unrelated case on Tuesday, Justice Stephen Breyer referenced Kim Kardashian in his oral arguments. When trying to make a point about theft, he said, "Even Kardashian's thief, if there is one, believes that all that jewelry is insured. Indeed, over-insured. So it's not theft?"
As for the context, CNN reported that he was trying to say that insurance does not negate theft during the Supreme Court Case, Lawrence Eugene Shaw v. United States. The question at the end appears to be rhetorical. Still, Breyer's comments are rather puzzling. That little phrase, "if there is one," seems to imply doubt as to whether Kardashian's robbery actually happened. Bustle reached out to the Supreme Court's office for clarity on Breyer's statement, but has not heard back at this time.
It's possible that the Justice was trying to be better safe than sorry, by not confirming that an actual theft occurred. And hopefully that is all he meant. Given the severity of Kardashian's story, it wouldn't really be appropriate for someone with such authority to question whether a robbery actually happened. Kardashian's rep said, "She is badly shaken but physically unharmed" after the incident.
According to the official transcript, Breyer continued the analogy a bit further. The Supreme Court case is about a California man who, according to CNN, allegedly "drained another man's bank account [and] is arguing that he didn't commit bank fraud because the bank was insured and didn't lose money." The point of Breyers' Kim K analogy seems to be that even if Kardashian had insurance on her jewelry, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's theft. He also said,
If he defrauds him out of the money, he defrauds her out of the jewelry, says, 'Here I am, your local jewelry cleaner.' Gets the jewelry. Wouldn't you think that was fraud? Even if she's insured. Even if he thinks she's triple insured. Even if he thinks that, in fact, this isn't even her jewelry, that it was just loaned her on the occasion by a good friend, the necklace.
To an extent, I understand the point he was trying to make. But given that Kardashian is still shaken up, the timing isn't the best. And honestly, I don't think it was necessary to bring Kardashian into the courtroom at all, especially if he really was implying or joking that there may not have been a theft at all.