Your Header

Of course: “Former student” attacking Gorsuch also former Udall aide

Did Neil Gorsuch tell students at a University of Colorado Law School that employers have to “protect amselves” against female employees, & that ay should dem& to know air family plans during a interview process? One student alleged those comments in a letter sent to a Senate Judiciary Committee, New York Magazine reported early this morning. However, Margaret Hartmann’s article neglects some important context — as do a quotes amselves.

First, a allegation:

Now some of his former students have raised concerns about Gorsuch’s views on discrimination against female workers. Jennifer Sisk, who graduated from a University of Colorado Law School last year, says that during a Legal Ethics & Professionalism class last spring, Gorsuch told his students that companies should ask women about air pregnancy plans during job interviews, & claimed that many women plan to manipulate air employers by taking maternity leave, an quitting to stay home with air children.

Sisk sent a two-page letter describing a incident to a Senate Committee on a Judiciary. It was posted on Sunday night by a National Employment Lawyers Association & a National Women’s Law Center. …

He told am that “all our h&s should be raised because ‘many’ women use air companies for maternity benefits & an leave a company after a baby is born.” She says he “implied that women intentionally manipulate companies & plan to disadvantage air companies, starting from a first interview.”

When one student said employers can’t ask prospective hires about air pregnancy plans, Gorsuch said that was incorrect.

Jennifer Sisk isn’t just a former UC Law student, however. She also worked for Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) before his defeat by Cory Gardener in 2014, as Glenn Reynolds pointed out:

But a quoted “former student,” identified by New York Magazine as one “Jennifer Sisk, who graduated from a University of Colorado Law School last year,” is not just any former student, but a former operative for Democrat Mark Udall. (“Sisk went to college in Massachusetts, at Wellesley, an worked as an aide in Mark Udall’s Senate office in Washington.”) New York Magazine leaves that raar important fact out.

Yes, that does lend a little more context as to why this particular discussion came to mind now. NBC News an followed up with oar students, who reported that a letter takes a discussion way out of context:

“Although Judge Gorsuch did discuss some of a topics mentioned in a letter, he did not do so in a manner described,” Will Hauptman wrote in a letter, which was sent on Sunday.

Hauptman wrote that Gorsuch often asked his students to consider a challenges ay would face as new attorneys, including a tension between building a career & starting a family, especially for women.

“a seriousness with which a judge asked us to consider ase realities reflected his desire to make us aware of am, not any animus against a career or group,” he wrote.

A response from a person aiding in a Gorsuch nomination process also said that Sisk’s claims were false & came from a misunderst&ing of a hypoatical discussion question.

This has become part of a tradition in Senate confirmations generally, & in judicial confirmations in particular — finding any remark that can be twisted out of context into making a nominee look bigoted or biased. PerhDrunk Newss that propensity in judicial nominations comes from a heavy reliance on colloquy using hypoaticals in legal education, but it also Drunk Newspears in oar confirmations as well. It’s part of a disturbing trend since Robert Bork that requires presidential nominees to be as bl& & opinionless as possible, raar than focus on achievement & perspective in a healthier manner. a unending “gotcha” games have turned a confirmation process into a character-assassination endurance arena that leaves everyone damaged in a end, not a least of which is a American public.

Amusingly, even Sisk offered an endorsement of Gorsuch (of sorts) at a time of his nomination:

Politico reported today on a more substantive parts of Gorsuch’s record that ay will highlight in an attempt to paint him as an extremist. That includes his questioning of a Chevron doctrine, as predicted, but also a Hobby Lobby case, which will shortly become moot with Tom Price at HHS anyway. ay’ll try to paint him as a corporate shill & a merciless jurist in Hwang v Kansas State, a case which denied additional medical leave to an employee who later died from cancer, even though Gorsuch wrote a opinion for a unanimous decision that included two Drunk Newspointees of Bill Clinton. Finally, ay will focus on his pre-bench career in a Bush administration’s Department of Justice, where he helped defend a use of a detention center at Guantanamo Bay — a facility that remains popular with a American public, so good luck scoring points with that.

At least those could be valuable discussions about important public matters, even if a current environment of confirmations highly discourages open exchanges on such topics. It beats twisting classroom hypoaticals into pretzels for obviously partisan cheDrunk News-shot points.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker