The Curious Case of Judge Neil Gorsuch

It seems that in a final death cry among the oppo­si­tion to the nom­i­na­tion and inevitable con­fir­ma­tion of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court a cer­tain small group of rab­ble-rousers — encour­aged and enabled yet again by cer­tain mem­bers of the so-called “pro­gres­sive” left press — have decried Gorsuch is a pla­gia­rist.

Read more @

Professor Robert George of Princeton University was the gen­er­al edi­tor for Gorsuch’s pub­lish­er, the Princeton University Press.  “I can only say that [these alle­ga­tions’] tim­ing and sub­stance (or, more to the point, lack of sub­stance) makes it dif­fi­cult to avoid the con­clu­sion that this is a polit­i­cal­ly moti­vat­ed effort to smear him in the hope of derail­ing his con­fir­ma­tion,” George sur­mised.

Judge Gorsuch did not attempt to steal oth­er people’s intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty … In no case did he seek cred­it for insights or analy­sis that had been pur­loined,” George con­tin­ued.  Noting that Gorsuch’s book went through a rig­or­ous peer review process under the aus­pices of Princeton before being accept­ed for pub­li­ca­tion, George con­clud­ed, “Not only is there no fire, there isn’t even any smoke.”

Did you read that last quot­ed sen­tence?

Not only is there no fire, there isn’t even any smoke.

Perhaps the most com­i­cal part of the oppo­si­tion to Judge Gorsuch is that there, real­ly, is noth­ing to oppose.  That’s what is mak­ing every attempt at oppo­si­tion appear to be, and indeed be mis­guid­ed, at best, and des­per­ate or bizarre at worst.  Well, there like­ly is worse, but I won’t go into that here (e.g., that it has noth­ing to do with Gorsuch and every­thing to do with attempt­ing to thwart any­thing and every­thing that Trump is doing or will attempt to do, and for no oth­er rea­son than because it is Trump try­ing to do it).  Oh, sor­ry … I went into a bit.

In any event, I have not heard a sin­gle even remote­ly con­vinc­ing argu­ment against Gorsuch.  There sim­ply is noth­ing there.  There is noth­ing to oppose. The man is seem­ing­ly a very rare breed in mod­ern pol­i­tics — some­one with impec­ca­ble … well, every­thing:  No scan­dal … no skele­tons in the clos­et … indeed not in “the clos­et” and lead­ing a dou­ble life.  And, even if he were secret­ly gay, for exam­ple, the pro­gres­sive left would have to twist them­selves into an impres­sive men­tal and intel­lec­tu­al tri­que­tra (that’s my new word learned for the day) to attempt to argue that there is any­thing wrong with that and, indeed, that it isn’t all the more rea­son to con­firm Gorsuch.  I mean, the left embraces diver­si­ty, don’t they?  If Gorsuch were secret­ly gay and liv­ing a dou­ble life it would be because of soci­etal dis­crim­i­na­tion and his­tor­i­cal injus­tices, wouldn’t it?  He would have to be declared TIME mag­a­zine’s Person of the Year and fet­ed by the media and celebri­ties, wouldn’t he?  He’d be a “hero,” wouldn’t he?

Leave a Reply

Notify of