Gorsuch refuses to mask up

#376
#376
NurseGoodVol said:
So all this crap dredged up because EL expressed an opinion on an unverified article, just another day ending in y.
Click to expand...

Dims always looking for something be offended by. I’m sure el doesn’t care about peoples cat allergies when venturing out in public though.
 
#378
#378
volinbham said:
The story has some timeline issues. It's reported that Sotomayor's decision to remote in was made prior to Gorsuch showing up sans mask. The statement from G and S indicates she never asked him to mask up. It's not clear what Roberts "in some form" even means.

So Sotomayor would have to have heard from Gorsuch that he was not going to mask up prior to the session so she could choose not to attend.

I suppose that's possible but it doesn't jibe well with the statement from G and S.
Click to expand...
The timeline and the fact that they’re still masking without her doesn’t make sense that it was about her at all. I said that, yesterday.

I can think of multiple reasons why Roberts would ask them to wear masks: 1. He wanted to avoid this exact type of story. 2. There are two old men on the court and two obese women. I’m sure I could come up with more.

FWIW, There’s also Totenburg’s confusion of the Miers/Alito/Roberts timeline to make it seem more likely that Alito is mad at Roberts for stealing the role of Chief from him. Normally would take her over anybody at an entertainment cable network, but she had some convenient mistakes in the article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#386
#386
evillawyer said:
No, it only says the reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Gorsuch to wear a mask is false. But the NPR story was that the request came from Roberts. They know though that knuckledragging rubes like you will take it to be a full-throated denial when it isn't.

From the article that kicked off the thread:

"NPR reports that after Sotomayor made clear she felt vulnerable amid an Omicron-driven surge in cases, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the other justices to wear a mask on the bench. All of them did except Gorsuch, who also happens to sit next to Sotomayor, according to NPR."
Click to expand...

If Sotomayor was wearing a mask then what's the problem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: C-south and FLVOL69
#387
#387
hog88 said:
Yeah and I said “if she did”.

For some reason that really chaps your delicate ass.

Funny how the falsehoods posted by and made up ish from your fellow barrister hasn’t upset you.
Click to expand...

I don’t read too many of the posts of people who mock parents who lost their kids to Covid.
 
#388
#388
RockyTop85 said:
Gave you a like for not pretending like it’s completely normal behavior to tell your colleagues to shove it when you’re approached about voluntarily wearing a mask in the workplace.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your stance and your ability to speak up . I don’t have a single problem telling my colleagues to shove it when it comes to masks or anyone trying to force me against my will to do something I’m against . 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#389
#389
0nelilreb said:
I guess it depends on your stance and your ability to speak up . I don’t have a single problem telling my colleagues to shove it when it comes to masks or anyone trying to force me against my will to do something I’m against . 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Yeah… I don’t think being so politically online that you’re willing to alienate “anyone” over something so trivial is a thing to be proud of.
 
#392
#392
evillawyer said:
Sits next to Sotomayor, who is diabetic and immunocompromised, but he refuses to wear a mask. What a jerk. But I'm sure all the "loves em some Jesus" folks on here approve.

Click to expand...

That's because they do Nothing to prevent an airborne virus genius, a virus is approximately 1 micron and the pores on the masks are 80 microns. Spare us your feigned outrage 😆F0C3093C-58BD-48F7-B135-F6886613BA2A.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray and NorthDallas40
#393
#393
evillawyer said:
Click to expand...


So, they're standing by her reporting. And yet, the following is also from Totenberg's article:

"In 2005, the Bush White House was preparing for the retirement of the ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and according to reliable sources, Alito was led to believe that he would be nominated to become chief justice. But Rehnquist did not retire at the end of the term in June, as expected. Instead Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did, and President George W. Bush, after a botched effort at naming a woman, picked Roberts to be O'Connor's successor. "

This completely misstates the timeline. Harriet Miers (the woman whose botched nomination is referenced) was not considered for for O'Connor's seat prior to Rehnquist's death. Roberts was the first choice. Miers was nominated after Roberts had already been confirmed as Chief Justice. When Miers was basically forced to withdraw, Alito got the SDO seat.

So NPR is willing to stand by this reporting despite the fact that it makes allegations of conflict within SCOTUS that depend on completely butchering the order of events.

I hope I can be forgiven for not trusting such sloppy work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, FLVOL69 and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top