Gorsuch is apparently a real d**k

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember people..... 48 Hour rule. In this case, it was 24 hours.

The report was that Roberts asked everyone to mask up, so this statement that Sotomayor didn’t make such a request doesn’t undermine the original report.

the catch phrase is “in one form or another”

[Anonymous]

The victimization of DCUM is on full display here in this thread. Protect the wise latina and once the story was debunked, continue attacking Gorsuch! During the mandate hearing, even Sotomayor called justice Gorscuch "Neil". Common sense is to close this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See, per the linked news report, it sounds like Gorsuch put on a mask on Wednesday 1/19, and Sotomayor stayed home. That tends to suggest he might not be the reason. But I think we all can agree this one day - as the statement gets put out to downplay the controversy - is not a clear signal of reasons. The next day for oral argument isn’t until sometime in February. Let’s see if he wears the mask then. If he starts regularly masking up, and Sotomayor stays away, I can agree that there is not a clear link. So let’s wait and see what happens.

So we are now changing horses mid-stream?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember people..... 48 Hour rule. In this case, it was 24 hours.

The report was that Roberts asked everyone to mask up, so this statement that Sotomayor didn’t make such a request doesn’t undermine the original report.

the catch phrase is “in one form or another”

The Chief Justice denied the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, per the linked news report, it sounds like Gorsuch put on a mask on Wednesday 1/19, and Sotomayor stayed home. That tends to suggest he might not be the reason. But I think we all can agree this one day - as the statement gets put out to downplay the controversy - is not a clear signal of reasons. The next day for oral argument isn’t until sometime in February. Let’s see if he wears the mask then. If he starts regularly masking up, and Sotomayor stays away, I can agree that there is not a clear link. So let’s wait and see what happens.

Or she doesn’t trust the dirtbag to mask up. He hasn’t so far.

On the bench Wednesday, all of the justices again were masked, although a few took their face coverings off for brief periods. Sotomayor again participated remotely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/neil-gorsuch-sonia-sotomayor-masks-supreme-court/2022/01/19/7977831a-7946-11ec-9102-d65488c31bb1_story.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Do you know how bad a story has to be for the Chief Justice to issue a public statement and call BS???

That's not what he did.

He may as well have: "I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench.” - Chief John Roberts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, per the linked news report, it sounds like Gorsuch put on a mask on Wednesday 1/19, and Sotomayor stayed home. That tends to suggest he might not be the reason. But I think we all can agree this one day - as the statement gets put out to downplay the controversy - is not a clear signal of reasons. The next day for oral argument isn’t until sometime in February. Let’s see if he wears the mask then. If he starts regularly masking up, and Sotomayor stays away, I can agree that there is not a clear link. So let’s wait and see what happens.

Or she doesn’t trust the dirtbag to mask up. He hasn’t so far.

On the bench Wednesday, all of the justices again were masked, although a few took their face coverings off for brief periods. Sotomayor again participated remotely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/neil-gorsuch-sonia-sotomayor-masks-supreme-court/2022/01/19/7977831a-7946-11ec-9102-d65488c31bb1_story.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

Do you know how bad a story has to be for the Chief Justice to issue a public statement and call BS???

That's not what he did.

He may as well have: "I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench.” - Chief John Roberts

Nope, he just masked up himself and everyone but Gorsuch got the hint and followed suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's diabetic, as are my parents yet for decades I've watched my diet, exercised and took care of myself, just like Goursch. We are the same age and neither of us have diabetes. Why should he wear a mask when it isn't mandatory and one of his colleagues didn't take care of herself? Meanwhile I spent Sunday evening in the warmth of my childhood home with my parents without masks.

Because he’s going to be working with this woman for pretty much the rest of their natural lives and it’s the professionally courteous thing to do? Because he holds himself out as a religious man, and Christians have an obligation to look out for their neighbors?

I say “hold himself out” because like so many American Christians, it’s clear they don’t actually believe what they say they do, otherwise they’d be sweating the afterlife big time. Jesus wasn’t an Ayn Rand billionaire.

No, the professional thing to do is resign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a fake story. It is hard to imagine what more can be said to convince the liberals that this is a story designed to raise outrage - probably in an effort to get Biden to stack the court.

Ruth Marcus and Nina Totenberg should apologize. So should Claire McCaskill while we're at it.

It's fake news. Not surprising that the liberal nutjobs at NPR ran with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The victimization of DCUM is on full display here in this thread. Protect the wise latina and once the story was debunked, continue attacking Gorsuch! During the mandate hearing, even Sotomayor called justice Gorscuch "Neil". Common sense is to close this thread.

This proves nothing! I called a former boss by his first name and detested him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for Gorsuch for masking up to dispel the appearance of strife between justices. Well done.

Yes, golf clap for giving right wingers plausible deniability.

It indicates some shame, which I thought they had completely lost. I’m personally glad.

[Anonymous]

So this whole story is BS? She is not one just to fall on her sword so there is really no other conclusion that this was a non-story from the start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this whole story is BS? She is not one just to fall on her sword so there is really no other conclusion that this was a non-story from the start.

It could be BS... or, the justices could be lying to cover their a***s, which is more likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this whole story is BS? She is not one just to fall on her sword so there is really no other conclusion that this was a non-story from the start.

It could be BS... or, the justices could be lying to cover their a***s, which is more likely.

+1. This is a PR operation to salvage the dying reputation of the SCOTUS. Nina Totenberg is not just some B-list reporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this whole story is BS? She is not one just to fall on her sword so there is really no other conclusion that this was a non-story from the start.

It could be BS... or, the justices could be lying to cover their a***s, which is more likely.

+1. This is a PR operation to salvage the dying reputation of the SCOTUS. Nina Totenberg is not just some B-list reporter.

Dan Rather wasn't a B-lister when he lied, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this whole story is BS? She is not one just to fall on her sword so there is really no other conclusion that this was a non-story from the start.

It could be BS... or, the justices could be lying to cover their a***s, which is more likely.

+1. This is a PR operation to salvage the dying reputation of the SCOTUS. Nina Totenberg is not just some B-list reporter.

TBH - I think she has a motive for writing a negative story about SCOTUS, and trying to paint the conservative Justices in a negative light.
With all the talk on the left about stacking the court, this plays right into that narrative.

It takes a really bad story for 3 Justices - one of them liberal - to speak out within 24 hours to dispel what was presented as "truth."

Totenberg needs to reevaluate her sources.