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???

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there’s not even a kernel of truth to the story, Gorsuch can put this all to rest by publicly stating that he will happily don a mask in the workplace, should such a request be made.

He doesn’t even have to make a public apology statement; he can just start wearing a mask when he sits next to his colleagues like he was asked. We will see what he does when they next sit.

And, if he were to start wearing a mask and Sotomayor continued to work remotely, you would have a different opinion of him and this false story?
Did it ever occur to you that Sotomayor is working remotely because of factors OTHER than her colleagues on the bench?????

Yes, if Gorsuch starts wearing a mask and Sotomayor continues to work remotely, then I will agree that his prior refusal to mask up was likely not the issue. Does that satisfy you? See how it’s easy to be reasonable?

But the base question is whether he will wear a mask or not. He now clearly knows from the reporting that Sotomayor is staying out of the office because of health concerns. So all he has to do is start wearing a mask, whether or not she specifically asks him.

If after all this, Gorsuch still refuses to mask up, and Sotomayor still works remotely, will you admit that he’s likely a part of the reason she’s staying away?

Let’s see if you will be reasonable too.

He masked up today and Sotomayor was still remote.....

Anonymous wrote:Sotomayor probably had an exposure so she's working from her chambers. That's what you're supposed to do!

I'm guessing Gorsuch may have noticed that she was gone and decided to forgo the mask, not anticipating the narrative of the situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there’s not even a kernel of truth to the story, Gorsuch can put this all to rest by publicly stating that he will happily don a mask in the workplace, should such a request be made.

He doesn’t even have to make a public apology statement; he can just start wearing a mask when he sits next to his colleagues like he was asked. We will see what he does when they next sit.

And, if he were to start wearing a mask and Sotomayor continued to work remotely, you would have a different opinion of him and this false story?
Did it ever occur to you that Sotomayor is working remotely because of factors OTHER than her colleagues on the bench?????

Yes, if Gorsuch starts wearing a mask and Sotomayor continues to work remotely, then I will agree that his prior refusal to mask up was likely not the issue. Does that satisfy you? See how it’s easy to be reasonable?

But the base question is whether he will wear a mask or not. He now clearly knows from the reporting that Sotomayor is staying out of the office because of health concerns. So all he has to do is start wearing a mask, whether or not she specifically asks him.

If after all this, Gorsuch still refuses to mask up, and Sotomayor still works remotely, will you admit that he’s likely a part of the reason she’s staying away?

Let’s see if you will be reasonable too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there’s not even a kernel of truth to the story, Gorsuch can put this all to rest by publicly stating that he will happily don a mask in the workplace, should such a request be made.

He doesn’t even have to make a public apology statement; he can just start wearing a mask when he sits next to his colleagues like he was asked. We will see what he does when they next sit.

And, if he were to start wearing a mask and Sotomayor continued to work remotely, you would have a different opinion of him and this false story?
Did it ever occur to you that Sotomayor is working remotely because of factors OTHER than her colleagues on the bench?????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there’s not even a kernel of truth to the story, Gorsuch can put this all to rest by publicly stating that he will happily don a mask in the workplace, should such a request be made.

He doesn’t even have to make a public apology statement; he can just start wearing a mask when he sits next to his colleagues like he was asked. We will see what he does when they next sit.

And, if he were to start wearing a mask and Sotomayor continued to work remotely, you would have a different opinion of him and this false story?
Did it ever occur to you that Sotomayor is working remotely because of factors OTHER than her colleagues on the bench?????

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there’s not even a kernel of truth to the story, Gorsuch can put this all to rest by publicly stating that he will happily don a mask in the workplace, should such a request be made.

He doesn’t even have to make a public apology statement; he can just start wearing a mask when he sits next to his colleagues like he was asked. We will see what he does when they next sit.

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.

So not only is Gorsuch not wearing a mask, he's gas-lighting us as well.