In any case, I believe this real but isolated plagiarism is not disqualifying. His ideology is bigger problem and disqualifying
I think you let Gorsuch off too easy,calling it an "oversight." I think it is pretty egregious copying, but isolated: no evidence of patternhttps://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/849640912603025414 …
-
-
-
Just curious: Are any of the judges on Trump's list of 21 not disqualified by ideology in your view? Sutton? Kavanaugh? Wilkinson?
-
a compromise candidate would have to come from elsewhere; the list was compiled pre-election to reassure GOP base
-
The Q is, putting aside Trump and Garland, should a conservative judge ever be confirmed to SCOTUS. Seems
@rickhasen's view is no, never. -
Why should Garland be irrelevant? That was an incredible breach of norms.
-
I was exploring the philophical issue.
@rickhansen said "no Gorsuch b/c of Gorsuch," not "No Gorsuch b/c of Garland." (Perhaps its both) -
it's fair for Dems to oppose Gorsuch as Gorsuch (or for GOP to oppose Pam Karlan as Pam Karlan); but senate majority wins
-
here and now, I think it's also fair to oppose [insert GOP nom] in favor of compromise candidate, in wake of Garland
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps. I know every time I finish a long manuscript that won't go through law review spading, I panic that I missed something somewhere.
-
what Gorsuch did is more than that. Isolated but egregious
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's five instances in one book alone... how much of this 'isolation' is just journos not having looked exhaustively?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
do you find Whelan's "he's just repeating technical definitions similarly but not identically" argument persuasive?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.