Gorsuch refuses to mask up

[VOLS INC.]

I am more convinced than ever that Evil is LG.

There can’t be 2 people in the world this good at embarrassing themselves on this forum.

You think we got a Finkle/Einhorn situation happening?

 

[volinbham]

I Am Embarrassed for the Supreme Court

but you're not embarrassed for yourself?

 

[volinbham]

I don't know this to be true, since I obviously haven't been sitting in on oral arguments at SCOTUS, but multiple journalists who are there regularly have pointed out that the all of the justices have been removing their masks when asking questions. That makes a great deal of sense given that an accurate court record is critically important.

If this is true (and again, I don't know that it is) then it would make no logical sense for Roberts or any other justice to request mask wearing, and it would be perfectly reasonable for Gorsuch to decide to dispense with the pretense. It would also be a wise decision on the part of Sotomayor that she participate remotely.

a simple answer to the situation

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

I Am Embarrassed for the Supreme Court

 

[volinbham]

the greatest part of the Slate story is it's implicit acknowledgment that the NPR story is wrong.

Usually, what we do doesn’t require waiting for them or for anyone else to ask that we take on the trivial inconvenience of a mask. Usually we just err on the side of performing solicitude because that is a minimal human effort that costs nothing. What Wednesday’s bizarre public statements confirmed for me was simply that neither Sotomayor nor the chief justice think it appropriate to ask Gorsuch to perform such solicitude—to do the thing my dentist, my grocer, and my aunt don’t have to ask me to do in public settings each day: err on the side of caution.

As Bama points out - given that all the justices are maskless at some point the simple explanation for Sotomayor to be remote is that she considers ALL the justices (and everyone else in the courtroom) to be potential threats. Entirely her choice.

A fiction was created to explain her behavior and the Gorsuch haters gleefully lapped it up. Now we see an article like this basically saying "well it may not be true but I still think Gorsuch is a big poopyhead because he shouldn't be on the court and Mitch McConnell and Trump and ahaahahaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[Sea Ray]

Heard a theory that they’re standing by it because the source is a justice.

Basically, the reasoning was that clerks are there for a year. Journalist wouldn’t trust a source this much without some longstanding relationship. I feel like this doesn’t rule out a few other career staffers.

I heard a story that Santa Claus came down my chimney one night...NPR: at this point give us sources or shut up

 

[RockyTop85]

I heard a story that Santa Claus came down my chimney one night...NPR: at this point give us sources or shut up

No media outlet is going to out a source unless the source knowingly lied to them.

That’s like Vandy fans demanding a football championship.

 

[Sea Ray]

The explanation makes sense to me that it’s not a clerk.

On the very slim chance that you're right, this justice will never give inside info to Nina again. She's burned her bridges

 

[Sea Ray]

No media outlet is going to out a source unless the source knowingly lied to them.

That’s like Vandy fans demanding a football championship.

That's the risk when you go with unnamed sources. If a named source (in this case 3) contradict you then you're screwed. NPR should know better. Furthermore their statement still isn't accurate. They claim that no one is disputing that the justices aren't getting along yet Sotomayor shoot that down too

 

[RockyTop85]

On the very slim chance that you're right, this justice will never give inside info to Nina again. She's burned her bridges

A. It’s not a matter of me being right. I’m not saying it’s true. It’s a theory that I’ve given the rationale for.
B. That makes absolutely no sense to me. If a Justice or staffer was sharing details with her then they have to expect it could get published.

 

[RockyTop85]

That's the risk when you go with unnamed sources. If a named source (in this case 3) contradict you then you're screwed. NPR should know better. Furthermore their statement still isn't accurate. They claim that no one is disputing that the justices aren't getting along yet Sotomayor shoot that down too

I agree, which is why I think it’s weird that they’re standing by the story and am curious about why.

 

[Sea Ray]

A. It’s not a matter of me being right. I’m not saying it’s true. It’s a theory that I’ve given the rationale for.
B. That makes absolutely no sense to me. If a Justice or staffer was sharing details with her then they have to expect it could get published.

Obviously the court is pissed that Totenberg is attempting to air their dirty laundry and they're teaching her a lesson. If your theory is correct, they didn't want this to go public.

Actually I disagree with your theory. I think Totenberg, being the left wing zealot that she is, wanted to write a story that slammed conservatives. Her story definitely did that and on the masking, she embellished the mask bit. Evidence points to Sotomayor opting to go remote long before she knew who would be wearing masks and who wouldn't. But rather than getting into your theory or mine, how 'bout if we just go with the facts? The facts are that 3 justices have disputed NPR's story

 

[Sea Ray]

I agree, which is why I think it’s weird that they’re standing by the story and am curious about why.

Ego. Plain and simple. They can't swallow their pride. Even if your theory is correct they should issue a retraction for two reasons:

1) To put this story to bed

2) To preserve their standing with the justices. They've clearly pissed off 3 justices

 

[RockyTop85]

Obviously the court is pissed that Totenberg is attempting to air their dirty laundry and they're teaching her a lesson. If your theory is correct, they didn't want this to go public.

Actually I disagree with your theory. I think Totenberg, being the left wing zealot that she is, wanted to write a story that slammed conservatives. Her story definitely did that and on the masking, she embellished the mask bit. Evidence points to Sotomayor opting to go remote long before she knew who would be wearing masks and who wouldn't. But rather than getting into your theory or mine, how 'bout if we just go with the facts? The facts are that 3 justices have disputed NPR's story

This makes less sense. If you don’t want it to go public you don’t tell a court correspondent for a major media outlet in the first place. If you do, you get an agreement that it’s on background.

Up until this week, there wasn’t any indication that NPR had abandoned journalism norms, and Totenberg had a good reputation as far as legacy media Supreme Court correspondents. I find it hard to believe that they would abandon that over what amounts to a gossip column that had other errors.

I’ve never disputed the last sentence. In fact, it’s the genesis of questioning why they’re standing by the story? I don’t know why you’re including that unless you’re reading something into my posts that’s not there.

Ego. Plain and simple. They can't swallow their pride. Even if your theory is correct they should issue a retraction for two reasons:

1) To put this story to bed

2) To preserve their standing with the justices. They've clearly pissed off 3 justices

If it’s so inconceivable that’s a justice would leak to them, then #2 doesn’t matter. Their job isn’t to make friends with people who won’t give them information. Same podcast that floated the theory said there are at least two justices who really don’t like Totenberg already. Hasn’t stopped her doing her job before now.

#1 is so obvious that I assume they have considered it and feel it’s outweighed by their other considerations. Maybe that’s ego but I really doubt it for the reasons above.

 

[NorthDallas40]

the greatest part of the Slate story is it's implicit acknowledgment that the NPR story is wrong.

Usually, what we do doesn’t require waiting for them or for anyone else to ask that we take on the trivial inconvenience of a mask. Usually we just err on the side of performing solicitude because that is a minimal human effort that costs nothing. What Wednesday’s bizarre public statements confirmed for me was simply that neither Sotomayor nor the chief justice think it appropriate to ask Gorsuch to perform such solicitude—to do the thing my dentist, my grocer, and my aunt don’t have to ask me to do in public settings each day: err on the side of caution.

As Bama points out - given that all the justices are maskless at some point the simple explanation for Sotomayor to be remote is that she considers ALL the justices (and everyone else in the courtroom) to be potential threats. Entirely her choice.

A fiction was created to explain her behavior and the Gorsuch haters gleefully lapped it up. Now we see an article like this basically saying "well it may not be true but I still think Gorsuch is a big poopyhead because he shouldn't be on the court and Mitch McConnell and Trump and ahaahahaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

This is a real life NPC meme playing out before us in the MSM attacking a Supreme Court Justice that won’t just shut up and get on board with their virtue signaling medically useless mask. It’s both scary and hilarious at the same time.

 

[bamawriter]

Ego. Plain and simple. They can't swallow their pride. Even if your theory is correct they should issue a retraction for two reasons:

1) To put this story to bed

2) To preserve their standing with the justices. They've clearly pissed off 3 justices

And this is another reason why it's so crazy that they are standing behind the reporting. It's not like the Gorsuch mask issue was the only problem with the piece. As I pointed out a few pages back, Totenberg paints a picture of Alito being pissed at Roberts based on a completely inaccurate description of events surrounding their confirmations. And that's not an issue of a crummy source or rumor vs fact. That's an issue of flat out shoddy reporting. That they are standing by it is nuts.

 

[Jxn Vol]

I love watching NPR and one of our resident village idiots get dragged. Warms my heart.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Ego. Plain and simple. They can't swallow their pride. Even if your theory is correct they should issue a retraction for two reasons:

1) To put this story to bed

2) To preserve their standing with the justices. They've clearly pissed off 3 justices

Oh I’d say Alito and Thomas are happy to pile on for moral support. And if the Gorsuch / Sotomayor statement was accurate in describing their personal relationships (and I have no reason to doubt it was accurate) I’d guess they all take this completely stupid and ridiculous attack to heart. But at the same time I think as a whole they know to rise above it and just ignore them. If anything the more the MSM drags this on the more they burn bridges with all of them for future access.

 

[Sea Ray]

This makes less sense. If you don’t want it to go public you don’t tell a court correspondent for a major media outlet in the first place. If you do, you get an agreement that it’s on background.

Up until this week, there wasn’t any indication that NPR had abandoned journalism norms, and Totenberg had a good reputation as far as legacy media Supreme Court correspondents. I find it hard to believe that they would abandon that over what amounts to a gossip column that had other errors.

I’ve never disputed the last sentence. In fact, it’s the genesis of questioning why they’re standing by the story? I don’t know why you’re including that unless you’re reading something into my posts that’s not there.


If it’s so inconceivable that’s a justice would leak to them, then #2 doesn’t matter. Their job isn’t to make friends with people who won’t give them information. Same podcast that floated the theory said there are at least two justices who really don’t like Totenberg already. Hasn’t stopped her doing her job before now.

#1 is so obvious that I assume they have considered it and feel it’s outweighed by their other considerations. Maybe that’s ego but I really doubt it for the reasons above.

The entire Totenberg article was a hit job on the court's conservatives. I don't think the court appreciated that. Even the liberals didn't like it 'cause they know a conservative group could pull the same stunt to them. This was poor judgment on Totenberg's part. She overreached. NPR should pull the story and reassign Totenberg so that they can start anew with a court that's very pissed with them right now

 

[NorthDallas40]

How Many Supreme Court Justices Must Deny NPR's Reporting Before Media Outlets Believe Them?

I think a rational person should consider this case closed. If you really want to believe that Roberts, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor herself are all lying about this, fine. Go right ahead. But when all sides of an alleged dispute deny that it took place, and they are generally reputable people, and all we have to the contrary is anonymous sourcing, it's pretty clear how we should generally feel about it.

 

[RockyTop85]

The entire Totenberg article was a hit job on the court's conservatives. I don't think the court appreciated that. Even the liberals didn't like it 'cause they know a conservative group could pull the same stunt to them. This was poor judgment on Totenberg's part. She overreached. NPR should pull the story and reassign Totenberg so that they can start anew with a court that's very pissed with them right now

I don’t disagree with this except reassigning her… that’s not going to happen. It was a bad article that had serious problems even before it was refuted.* Again, if it were a good article, I wouldn’t be so curious about why they were letting it drag them down.

*-

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.

 

[Sea Ray]

I think she's blown "her access" to the court's inside scoop hence they oughta put someone else in there. Admittedly I could be misreading the tea leaves but I would think she's radioactive now. Seems as though even Sotomayor is not amused

 

[DonjoVol]

If she’s vaxed and wears a mask .. why does he have to ?
Also .. I don’t think Jesus would wear a mask so there’s that .

Oh I'm sure that's the next thing religious left democrats will tell us. Heard part of a sermon recently where a preacher claimed Jesus was transgender.

 

[DonjoVol]

the greatest part of the Slate story is it's implicit acknowledgment that the NPR story is wrong.

Usually, what we do doesn’t require waiting for them or for anyone else to ask that we take on the trivial inconvenience of a mask. Usually we just err on the side of performing solicitude because that is a minimal human effort that costs nothing. What Wednesday’s bizarre public statements confirmed for me was simply that neither Sotomayor nor the chief justice think it appropriate to ask Gorsuch to perform such solicitude—to do the thing my dentist, my grocer, and my aunt don’t have to ask me to do in public settings each day: err on the side of caution.

As Bama points out - given that all the justices are maskless at some point the simple explanation for Sotomayor to be remote is that she considers ALL the justices (and everyone else in the courtroom) to be potential threats. Entirely her choice.

A fiction was created to explain her behavior and the Gorsuch haters gleefully lapped it up. Now we see an article like this basically saying "well it may not be true but I still think Gorsuch is a big poopyhead because he shouldn't be on the court and Mitch McConnell and Trump and ahaahahaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

I think they have been trying to find something wrong with Gorsuch from day one. Remember during his nomination I do not recall any controversy being associated with him at all. He must have been squeaky clean. So now they have to make up a story to try and make him look bad.

 

[NorthDallas40]

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.

With the current more serious business of a SCOTUS Justice appointment I figured I’d bump this absolutely baseless and completely stupid recent blast from the past for a laugh. Good times