Last-Minute Oppo Dump Against Gorsuch Shows Democrats are REALLY Desperate Last-Minute Oppo Dump Against Gorsuch Shows Democrats are REALLY Desperate – NTK Network

Last-Minute Oppo Dump Against Gorsuch Shows Democrats are REALLY Desperate

If you are going to accuse someone of plagiarizing, make sure the person getting plagiarized agrees.

By NTK Staff | 04.04.2017 @10:25pm
Last-Minute Oppo Dump Against Gorsuch Shows Democrats are REALLY Desperate

How desperate are Democrats to derail the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court? According to reports, they have been shopping around opposition research claiming that Gorsuch plagiarized parts of his 2006 book – The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.

One news outlet that took the research is BuzzFeed. This was the major charge citing two paragraphs out of 300 pages:

The section at issue in his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, is a brief one: It is a summary of the facts and ruling in the 1982 case of Baby Doe, a baby born in Indiana with Down’s syndrome. It takes up only two paragraphs and seven endnotes in a book that covers more than 300 pages, including endnotes. The section, however, repeats language and sourcing from another work — Abigail Lawlis Kuzma’s 1984 Indiana Law Journal article, “The Legislative Response to Infant Doe.”

Unfortunately, for Democrats, the offended author isn’t offended at all and provides a statement stating quite clearly that “I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here.” Check out the key part from BuzzFeed below:

Kuzma did not respond directly to multiple requests for comment. In a statement from Kuzma provided to BuzzFeed News from the team of White House and outside staffers working on Gorsuch’s nomination, she said, “I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the ‘Baby/Infant Doe’ case that occurred in 1982. Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language.”

Ed Whelan at National Review Online reports that “Multiple academics who have reviewed the charges – including one of Gorsuch’s imagined victims – have rejected those claims, which, they explain, rest on a misunderstanding of academic citation standards and don’t involve misappropriation of anyone’s ideas, theories, or creative expressions.”

Sign Up

for NTK updates every week.