In a last minute attempt to block widely-favored Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, BuzzFeed and Politico ran some nonsense about him copying words in his book from an Indiana Law Journal article. We were glad to see as of yesterday morning that the Denver Post had ignored this story that belonged more in a left-wing political blog than our state’s daily newspaper. But, then, yesterday afternoon they published a balanced article, but an article nonetheless.
So, here’s the real story. Gorsuch didn’t do anything wrong and nobody cares about this stupid story. In fact, don’t believe us, listen to the woman whose work was allegedly (it wasn’t) plagiarized. The author of the Indiana Law Journal article is refuting the charge and, actually, issued a statement:
“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.”
This is just embarrassing for both the Denver Post (as well as Buzzfeed and Politico), which ran the story, and the Democrats who are desperately clinging to this false narrative. And it gets worse for these Democrats. The book in question went through a rigorous review process with Oxford University and Princeton University. Here are a few select quotes from people who were involved in this process:
- John Finnis, Emeritus Professor of Law at Oxford University, supervised Gorsuch’s Oxford Doctoral Thesis (you know, the one that underlies his book) and offered this statement: “[I]n my opinion, none of the allegations has any substance or justification … In all four cases, Neil Gorsuch’s writing and citing was easily and well within the proper and accepted standards of scholarly research and writing in the field of study in which he was working.”
- John Keown, the Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Christian Ethics at Georgetown University, who examined Judge Gorsuch’s dissertation said this: “The allegation is entirely without foundation. The book is meticulous in its citation of primary sources. The allegation that the book is guilty of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same primary sources is, frankly, absurd. Indeed, the book’s reliance on primary rather than secondary sources is one of its many strengths.”
- Robert George, General Editor of New Forum Books, the Princeton University Press series that published Judge Gorsuch’s book, and McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, wrote in a statement: “This is a politically motivated effort to smear him in the hope of derailing his confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Gorsuch did not attempt to steal other people’s intellectual property or pass off ideas or arguments taken from other writers as his own. In no case did he seek credit for insights or analysis that had been purloined. In short, not only is there no fire, there isn’t even any smoke.”
Between Democrats’ pathetic attempt to smear Gorsuch’s good name at the 11th hour, and today’s unprecedented filibuster of a supremely qualified pick, it’s an embarrassing day to be a Democrat.