Surprise: Liberals Push Bogus Last-Minute 'Plagiarism' Smear Against Gorsuch

Posted: Apr 05, 2017 1:06 PM

They're desperate. They've lost consecutive national elections. Their own tactics are finally being turned against them. They're pursuing a very stupid political strategy to mollify an unthinkingly livid base. They've got no good arguments against Neil Gorsuch. And now  Mitch McConnell says he's got the votes to push the 'nuclear' button on judicial filibusters under the Reid Rule just as soon as Democrats hold hands and jump off this unprecedented cliff together:

With the clock ticking down toward Gorsuch's seemingly inevitable confirmation, opponents are pulling out all the stops to sully his name and further controversialize his non-controversial nomination. Sen. Jeff Merkeley, a strong proponent of Reid's power grab to eliminate judicial filibusters when Democrats controlled the Senate, spent all night on the floor railing against Trump's qualified and mainstream pick, and whining about Merrick Garland's "stolen" seat. The Garland histrionics in particular have even become too much for one famously left-wing entertainer to stomach; her tweet was shared by Republican Orrin Hatch last evening, who wryly added, "when you've lost Cher..."

But as a Senator, Berkeley was fully entitled to launch an all-night gab fest objecting to something he's mad about. It's the hypocrisy that makes the spectacle worthy of mockery. It would be somewhat akin to Ted Cruz holding the floor for hours to argue against repealing Obamacare, or for Rand Paul to do the same in favor of increased drone strikes on US citizens. Merkeley was on the exact opposite side of this debate when the parties involved were in opposite positions.  This is known as "preening hackery."  The more insidious eleventh-hour attack is the allegation that Gorsuch plagiarized a short portion of his book on euthanasia. Buzzfeed and Politico ran with the story, which was quickly and comprehensively dismantled. National Review's Ed Whelan slaps down the story, quoting the supposed "victim" of the plagiarism, who says's not plagiarism:

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.

CNN's Andrew Kaczynski, whose research has turned up damaging examples of actual plagiarism over the years, calls this accusation "sort of weak," with attorney and conservative writer Ben Shapiro dismissing the charge as rooted in ignorance:

Liberals tried to nail Gorsuch on "sexism" based on extremely flimsy evidence. They failed. They tried to pretend that he never "side with the little guy" (which, by the way, isn't the job of a judge). They failed. And now they're calling him a plagiarist. It's garbage, and soon everybody will be calling him Justice Gorsuch.  I'll leave you with the latest, sad, and ridiculous Hail Mary heaved into the air by Chuck Schumer:
UPDATE - And a weak hit just got even weaker:

Recommended Townhall Video