Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the defund NPR poster:

Maybe Nina Totenberg made some inferences and reported interpretations as facts. I am in favor of knowing the details and all the facts.

But there are a couple of reasons that the essence of her story remains completely credible:

*Sotomayor did not contradict it! She spoke publicly, could have discredited it, and chose not to.

*Whether or not he was asked to wear a mask by Roberts--let's assume he wasn't--Gorsuch knows that Sotomayor is at risk for covid complications AND that she is not comfortable being around unmasked people. Whether or not they were instructed or asked, all of the other justices wore a mask.

What people are expecting is pretty low-level basic consideration on the part of Gorsuch toward his high-risk colleague and the rest of his colleagues. NT's story revealed that he is utterly lacking in this basic consideration.

The reality is that Sotomayor chose to work remotely, and had clearly made that decision long before the Justices got to the bench. She was never in the room with the other Justices. That is a fact.
So, the issue of Gorsuch not wearing a mask is a non-issue.

For three Justices to make statements dispelling a false and clearly poorly-sourced story rarely happens. And, the fact that NPR "stands behind" this clearly false story is even worse.

Yeah - I believe NPR should not be receiving tax payer funds because they have become less a reporting group and more of an activist group.

The justices' statements did not dispel the story. How many times does this have to be repeated?

Yes, they did.

Gorsuch and Sotomayor: "Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends."

Followed up by Roberts: "I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench."

It us clear that they are calling BS on the NPR story. Very clear.

The report DID NOT SAY THAT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the defund NPR poster:

Maybe Nina Totenberg made some inferences and reported interpretations as facts. I am in favor of knowing the details and all the facts.

But there are a couple of reasons that the essence of her story remains completely credible:

*Sotomayor did not contradict it! She spoke publicly, could have discredited it, and chose not to.

*Whether or not he was asked to wear a mask by Roberts--let's assume he wasn't--Gorsuch knows that Sotomayor is at risk for covid complications AND that she is not comfortable being around unmasked people. Whether or not they were instructed or asked, all of the other justices wore a mask.

What people are expecting is pretty low-level basic consideration on the part of Gorsuch toward his high-risk colleague and the rest of his colleagues. NT's story revealed that he is utterly lacking in this basic consideration.

The reality is that Sotomayor chose to work remotely, and had clearly made that decision long before the Justices got to the bench. She was never in the room with the other Justices. That is a fact.
So, the issue of Gorsuch not wearing a mask is a non-issue.

For three Justices to make statements dispelling a false and clearly poorly-sourced story rarely happens. And, the fact that NPR "stands behind" this clearly false story is even worse.

Yeah - I believe NPR should not be receiving tax payer funds because they have become less a reporting group and more of an activist group.

The justices' statements did not dispel the story. How many times does this have to be repeated?

Yes, they did.

Gorsuch and Sotomayor: "Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends."

Followed up by Roberts: "I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench."

It us clear that they are calling BS on the NPR story. Very clear.

+100
Well - clear to normal, intelligent, rational people without a political axe to grind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the defund NPR poster:

Maybe Nina Totenberg made some inferences and reported interpretations as facts. I am in favor of knowing the details and all the facts.

But there are a couple of reasons that the essence of her story remains completely credible:

*Sotomayor did not contradict it! She spoke publicly, could have discredited it, and chose not to.

*Whether or not he was asked to wear a mask by Roberts--let's assume he wasn't--Gorsuch knows that Sotomayor is at risk for covid complications AND that she is not comfortable being around unmasked people. Whether or not they were instructed or asked, all of the other justices wore a mask.

What people are expecting is pretty low-level basic consideration on the part of Gorsuch toward his high-risk colleague and the rest of his colleagues. NT's story revealed that he is utterly lacking in this basic consideration.

The reality is that Sotomayor chose to work remotely, and had clearly made that decision long before the Justices got to the bench. She was never in the room with the other Justices. That is a fact.
So, the issue of Gorsuch not wearing a mask is a non-issue.

For three Justices to make statements dispelling a false and clearly poorly-sourced story rarely happens. And, the fact that NPR "stands behind" this clearly false story is even worse.

Yeah - I believe NPR should not be receiving tax payer funds because they have become less a reporting group and more of an activist group.

The justices' statements did not dispel the story. How many times does this have to be repeated?

Yes, they did.

Gorsuch and Sotomayor: "Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends."

Followed up by Roberts: "I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench."

It us clear that they are calling BS on the NPR story. Very clear.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry people but at the end of a flurry of statements Gorsuch wasn’t wearing a mask. He is completely selfish, period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the defund NPR poster:

Maybe Nina Totenberg made some inferences and reported interpretations as facts. I am in favor of knowing the details and all the facts.

But there are a couple of reasons that the essence of her story remains completely credible:

*Sotomayor did not contradict it! She spoke publicly, could have discredited it, and chose not to.

*Whether or not he was asked to wear a mask by Roberts--let's assume he wasn't--Gorsuch knows that Sotomayor is at risk for covid complications AND that she is not comfortable being around unmasked people. Whether or not they were instructed or asked, all of the other justices wore a mask.

What people are expecting is pretty low-level basic consideration on the part of Gorsuch toward his high-risk colleague and the rest of his colleagues. NT's story revealed that he is utterly lacking in this basic consideration.

The reality is that Sotomayor chose to work remotely, and had clearly made that decision long before the Justices got to the bench. She was never in the room with the other Justices. That is a fact.
So, the issue of Gorsuch not wearing a mask is a non-issue.

For three Justices to make statements dispelling a false and clearly poorly-sourced story rarely happens. And, the fact that NPR "stands behind" this clearly false story is even worse.

Yeah - I believe NPR should not be receiving tax payer funds because they have become less a reporting group and more of an activist group.

Anonymous wrote:To the defund NPR poster:

Maybe Nina Totenberg made some inferences and reported interpretations as facts. I am in favor of knowing the details and all the facts.

But there are a couple of reasons that the essence of her story remains completely credible:

*Sotomayor did not contradict it! She spoke publicly, could have discredited it, and chose not to.

*Whether or not he was asked to wear a mask by Roberts--let's assume he wasn't--Gorsuch knows that Sotomayor is at risk for covid complications AND that she is not comfortable being around unmasked people. Whether or not they were instructed or asked, all of the other justices wore a mask.

What people are expecting is pretty low-level basic consideration on the part of Gorsuch toward his high-risk colleague and the rest of his colleagues. NT's story revealed that he is utterly lacking in this basic consideration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OMG.

Their credibility just evaporated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This whole thread should be appended to the LW/RW news thread.

Why is all the wording so CAREFUL?
Will we find out the real story?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has now been debunked by all the Supreme Court Justices involved, including the supposed victim herself.

Still, unlike the fake news about Justice Sotomayor dining out without a mask that was pushed in conservative media ten days ago, the “blue check” crowd has yet to demand retractions, nor have there been any soul-searching articles about gullibility or confirmation bias, nor any scolding of NPR or Totenberg.

NPR and Totenberg, meanwhile, still stand by the debunked report. It appears they will hang their refusal to take the Justices at their word on the sole reasoning that Totenberg used the words “in some form” when writing that Roberts “asked the other justices to mask up.”

Nevertheless, the original and still uncorrected report from Totenberg says definitively that Roberts asked. Roberts says definitively that he did not. Gorsuch and Sotomayor both said definitively that the story “is false.” They did not say “only part of the story is false” or “any implication of a specific interaction is false.” They, two attorneys, judges, Justices, said in a declarative statement: “It is false.” They left no wiggle room, nor did Chief Justice Roberts.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/justices-gorsuch-sotomayor-and-roberts-blow-up-npr-mask-story-by-nina-totenberg/ar-AASX1Qh?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Gorsuch and Sotomayor did not say the story is false. And you're using the legitimacy of msn to cite a RWNJ site, Mediaite.

Wow. Two complete lies. Mediaite is, in fact, a LWNJ site. Do you ever fact-check?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mediaite/

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Overall, we rate Mediaite Left Biased based on story selection that almost always favors the left. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to misleading, sensational headlines and the occasional use of poor sources.

Secondly, and as you already know, Gorsuch and Sotomayor put out a joint statement saying the story is false - as did CJ Roberts. You can parse their words as much as you want, but the story is false and everyone knows it. Grow up.

WASHINGTON — In an unusual joint statement on Wednesday, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil M. Gorsuch sought to rebut reports that Justice Gorsuch’s refusal to wear a mask at Supreme Court arguments has created tensions between them.

“Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us,” the statement said. “It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”

A few hours later, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued his own statement. “I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other justice to wear a mask on the bench,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/supreme-court-masks.html

NP. Gorsuch wasn’t wearing a mask. The statement doesn’t address this. It just says she didn’t ask him and they are coworkers on good terms. Roberts statement just say he didn’t ask the justices to wear a mask. So I fail to see how any of their words put a mask on Gorsuch’s face.

The statements of the 3 Justices prove that Totenberg's story - which went viral - is fake news. It didn't happen. Period.
And, yet folks here are doubling down, defending Totenberg and other journalists (Marcus) and trying to parse words to make it be true - because, "Please - this has to be a true story so we can disparage a Justice on SCOTUS that Trump nominated."
Seems as if Totenberg has an agenda. Gee. What might that be???? Amazingly, this thread popped up in the middle of this fake controversy: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1030482.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times does it have to be repeated tbat the report did not say that Sotomayor asked Gorsuch to mask up?

It said that Roberts asked Justices to mask up.
Roberts has unequivocally said he did not ask anyone to mask up.

How many times does it need to be repeated that the piece in NPR was full of $hit?

Anonymous wrote:Is Gorsuch any less of a dick if you don’t factor in Sotomayor’s diabetes? I think not!

The reality is all his colleagues were masked. Many of them are old enough that their age is a serious risk factor in and of itself. Not to mention other risk factors that might not be visible to the eye. And he has no idea whether other attorneys or court staff have hidden risk factors.

Masking is not a big deal. But, refusing to mask and forcing people with medical conditions out of the workspace is selfish and discriminatory. I don’t want to see a workplace where all the disabled and vulnerable people have to live in ever narrowing circles of people and spaces. It’s disheartening that our Supreme Court justices seem fine with that.

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 that is what kind people do. And how do you know her diabetes is due to diet and exercise, or lack thereof? I have a family member that is certainly true for. I have other people I'm close to that it is not.

Anonymous wrote:Is Gorsuch any less of a dick if you don’t factor in Sotomayor’s diabetes? I think not!

The reality is all his colleagues were masked. Many of them are old enough that their age is a serious risk factor in and of itself. Not to mention other risk factors that might not be visible to the eye. And he has no idea whether other attorneys or court staff have hidden risk factors.

Masking is not a big deal. But, refusing to mask and forcing people with medical conditions out of the workspace is selfish and discriminatory. I don’t want to see a workplace where all the disabled and vulnerable people have to live in ever narrowing circles of people and spaces. It’s disheartening that our Supreme Court justices seem fine with that.

Anonymous wrote:How many times does it have to be repeated tbat the report did not say that Sotomayor asked Gorsuch to mask up?