Gorsuch Apparently Plagiarized Passages in Book
Source: Political Wire
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch copied the structure and language used by several authors and failed to cite source material in his book and an academic article, Politico reports.
The documents show that several passages from the tenth chapter of his 2006 book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, read nearly verbatim to a 1984 article in the Indiana Law Journal. In several other instances in that book and an academic article published in 2000, Gorsuch borrowed from the ideas, quotes and structures of scholarly and legal works without citing them.
A White House statement: There is only one explanation for this baseless, last-second smear of Judge Gorsuch: those desperate to justify the unprecedented filibuster of a well-qualified and mainstream nominee to the Supreme Court.
Read more: https://politicalwire.com/2017/04/05/gorsuch-apparently-plagiarized-passages-book/
caroldansen
(725 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(56,893 posts)Do I have to look up quotes from McConnell et al. saying that we have all the time in the world to do something? You know it won't be difficult.
ETA, and in not too long, thanks to those darn interwebz, which never forget anything:
By Amber Phillips
April 11, 2016
Can the Supreme Court do its job this year with just eight justices? As the court's vacancy enters its second month, Republicans now appear to be saying: Sure. Why not.
The "sky won't fall" with just eight on the court. That is the headline in a Des Moines Register op-ed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published Sunday. Grassley was responding to a Des Moines Register editorial calling Republicans' blockade "un-American" and specifically singling out Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for blame.
"It's entirely American," Grassley argued.
So, who's right? Or really, who's argument has the most political leverage?
....
Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan. Follow @byamberphillips
jpak
(41,741 posts)who knew?
turbinetree
(24,632 posts)Not only does he think it's alright to freeze to death in truck this worthless right wing hypocrite, said yes to a sexual predator.
Imagine that saying yes to a sexual predator and being on the bench, maybe he forgot something, this lets remind him of what BS principles he has when he said YES to sexual predator. And this hypocrite is "suppose" to be Christian, just like his ruling in Hobby Lobby against woman and there privacy.
And then the right wingers whine about democrats packing the court with "liberals" FU.
Where's Garland--------------"boys", why don't you follow the Constitution, that's your job description and not your Mitch McConnell (Turtle) , Chuck Grassely, BS rendition of "packing" the court with right wingers FU and the horse you road in on.
And whats really remarkable these right winger do gooder's also say yes to the sexual predator............principles, they have none
FakeNoose
(32,347 posts)...as long as the author gives credit to the original source, at least in footnotes if not in the text.
I don't think it's a reason to vote him down, if that were the only thing he did.
But there are SO MANY OTHER reasons to vote this guy down.
Blues Heron
(5,898 posts)Totally disqualifying IMHO
In academia, this is a very serious offense. He would have known that this was wrong, yet chose to do it anyways. IMO all of his writings should be gone through. Again, IMO it is deceit and theft.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Gorsuch wants to form a club called "fascism forever"
That alone is reason why he should not have a job as asst mgr at my local 7/11 let alone SC
politicat
(9,808 posts)People with tenure have been fired for this. Job offers are withdrawn. Failure to cite is massive in academic circles -- it's intellectual theft of our work product. I just wrote my dissertation 18 months ago. The writing took far less time than making sure I cited everything, even potential paraphrases. (Because anyone who writes regularly should also be reading voraciously, and most readers have magpie minds, so a turn of phrase may not be original, and that must be checked.)
This alone is enough to fire him from his adjunct position, and if he is fired from that, he should not be eligible for the highest court because it shows he's not careful enough.
diva77
(7,604 posts)Monica Crowley bows out of Trump administration post following plagiarism revelations
by Andrew Kaczynski and Jim Acosta @CNNMoney January 16, 2017: 1:33 PM ET
snip
Conservative author and television personality Monica Crowley is stepping away from her appointment to a senior communications role in Donald Trump's incoming administration, CNN confirms.
The move comes after CNN's KFile uncovered multiple instances of plagiarism in her 2012 book, her columns for the Washington Times, and her 2000 Ph.D. dissertation for Columbia University. Crowley was slated to be the senior director of strategic communications for the National Security Council in Trump's administration.
snip
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)people who plagiarize so much for the only book they publish could have plagiarized their way through colleges. IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch#Bibliography
edited to add, or take some old school paper they wrote, strip off the foot notes and publish it as a 'book they wrote' so they could 'generate quick income' from 'book sales'. many Republicans use the 'book trick'. Works with campaign funds too.
Buy your own book, thousands of copies with campaign funds and give book away free. Campaign funds into your pocket as income from book sales. Can even makes best seller lists if your 'friends' each buy a couple thousand books.
mahatmakanejeeves
(56,893 posts)I don't know. What I'm getting at is, if he contributed to it as a researcher or as a co-author, then all he is doing is quoting himself. I quote myself all the time.
I expect more details, including the answer to my question, as the day goes by. Until then, what's the hurry on approving the nomination? If he were to get on the Court, one side in every case that went before the Court would automatically call for his recusal.
It's one thing to find the defective transmission before you buy a used car. But once you've paid for it and driven it home, you are at a big disadvantage.
This thing might not be able to get out of R. We'd better find out now.
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)so I doubt it.
mahatmakanejeeves
(56,893 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)"call for recusal" yes they can call for recusal of a SC Justice.
From what I understand about the SC, the Justice him/her self decides to recuse or not. Not each other or any other person can order a Justice recusal. Same for retirement. Once they're in, we're stuck with them for life
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I find that much more troubling.
Christ, life when really sick and in pain is tough enough. Why should we, and our families, have to suffer? Yeah, I know there is a potential for other family members to abuse the sick person. But, I think that can be minimized.
brush
(53,471 posts)If he's a plagiarist, he's a cheater who hasn't earned it.
That's a huge deal.
Why excuse that?
Should we also excuse trump and the help he got from Putin and Comey?
Talk about a slippery slope. Just relax all standards now for high office .
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)major plagiarism. I will bet if you actually read those "passages" that were supposedly plagiarized, you'd find it is not some brilliant new idea stolen from someone else, simply a rehash of religious BS about euthanasia.
At some point, we have to stop grousing about little things that just don't matter.
brush
(53,471 posts)High office, especially appointed high office, should mean high standards achieved, not thievery no matter how "minor" you think it is.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)brush
(53,471 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)supposedly did. Again, I am much more opposed to his opposition to assisted suicide. But, when we allow GOPers to take the Presidency, this is what we should expect. Should have thought of that before 40% of the party started trashing Clinton.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)used plagiarism as a cudgel against Biden, it's relevant now.
brush
(53,471 posts)is a minor, excusable matter, and I'm guessing 99.9% of the others on this board agree.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)brush
(53,471 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)very much. His ideology does, but I doubt GOPers are going to nominate anyone to our liking.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)It isn't just that he copied. It's that he did not give a nod to his sources.
Last edited Thu Apr 6, 2017, 06:26 AM - Edit history (2)
i actually read and compared the relevant passages in the two texts. There certainly were similarities and Gorsuch certainly was aware of the source material. But the ideas/facts themselves are not protected; only the expression of them is. In many cases, the ideas/facts in the two texts just don't lend themselves to being expressed very differently. Maybe Gorsuch should have played it safer by attributing the source or footnoting. But I didn't think it was as horrible as some here do. But maybe that's because I actually looked beyond the headline and news story posted to DU and read the stuff?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)brush
(53,471 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 6, 2017, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)
be so careless as to not credit others' writing and pass it off as his own.
Ibid and op. cit. are still standard in scholarly works.
Why would we want a judge so careless as to not use footnotes.
Or could it be he's unaware of their necessity?
Come on, who believes that for a minute?
Whatever the case, such a judge does not belong on the highest court of the land.
It shouldn't even be argued to the contrary on a progressive board.
Is he going to be as careless in his decisions on the bench?
Response to brush (Reply #47)
Post removed
brush
(53,471 posts)Are you also ok with his confirmation?
djg21
(1,803 posts)I think the lack of attribution was unfortunate, but not disqualifying. Working in the publishing industry, I'm sure you're aware that ideas are not protected under analogous copyright law; only the expression of those ideas are protected. I'm sure you're also familiar with the "merger" doctrine (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/media_law_prof_blog/2006/05/merger_doctrine.html). I don't know how many ways there are to relay the facts that allegedly were cribbed by Gorsuch from the source law review article. I've also not looked at the primary authority cited by both the law review article and Gorsuch, but I'd bet the language in all three writings is substantially similar. There just aren't many distinct ways to express the factual data that was relayed by all three works.
In any event, given that Democrats have no real power to thwart the nomination, it also is somewhat meaningless.
I don't like Gorsuch's ideology, and disagree with some of his judicial decisions, but I do believe him to be qualified to serve on SCOTUS. Yes I am upset that Garland wasn't appointed, but the fault for that lies in large part with the Democrats in the Senate and with President Obama, who didn't push hard enough. I do believe the failure of the Senate Republicans to consider Garland was a dereliction and disgraceful, but again, the Dems should have pressed harder.
I also am terrified about what the next Trump nominee will look like if Gorsuch is not confirmed or there is another vacancy. Maybe the Dems should save their limited ammunition for the next fight? Gorsuch may be the best the Dems can hope for right now, all things considered.
On edit: this is what the author of the law review article allegedly plagiarized has 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."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/neil-gorsuch-accused-of-plagiarizing-parts-of-his-book.html
brush
(53,471 posts)how any future appointments by trump or Pence would be any further right.
You mentioned the Dems didn't fight hard enough before but you don't want them to fight now on Gorsuch?
I say call the repugs bluff. Make them change the 230-year-old Senate rule they claim to revere so.
Let's see if they have the nerve to do it, as they are well aware they won't always be in the majority.
If they do, that fact will then forever be on their record.
IMO we have nothing to lose here in fighting, in forcing them to blow up centuries of Senate tradition.
FBaggins
(26,696 posts)Both versions?
brush
(53,471 posts)Why not just credit them?
It would have been easier to just set the lifted sentences off in noted graphs instead of weaving them into patchwork passages with no attribution which implies that the thoughts were original.
Not ready for prime time or SCOTUS.
Thank god the Dems filibustered him.
FBaggins
(26,696 posts)What are those little number thingies ever sentence or two?
brush
(53,471 posts)Examples, pls.
And why are so many defending this winger?
FBaggins
(26,696 posts)The numbers 49 and 50 or 13-18 below?
brush
(53,471 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 6, 2017, 09:25 PM - Edit history (1)
BTW, there's a typo.
FBaggins
(26,696 posts)... but now it's that they aren't frequent enough?
This without seeing the text of the citations or the text that he was citing?
Okey dokey.
brush
(53,471 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 7, 2017, 02:33 PM - Edit history (3)
against all progressive/liberal measures and try with the rest of the repugs to take us back to the '50s, and
black people back to the back of the bus, and where Roe v. Wade will be toast, coat hanger use will soar
again, Medicare and Medicaid will be faint memories and Social Security will be privatized?
I'm puzzled. What is that about?
And he didn't cite attribution for everything lifted from another's writings.
That's why the charges came to light.
PatSeg
(46,794 posts)there is no mistake too small to disqualify a Democrat, nor too big to disqualify a republican. The double standard is bizarre and surreal.
unblock
(51,974 posts)due to pot smoking after college.
we had some actual power back then, though....
PatSeg
(46,794 posts)that a republican can do to be disqualified by his/her peers. They take hypocrisy to a new level. And Donald Trump epitomizes it all.
unblock
(51,974 posts)anything outrageous is actually a plus for them because they love seeing us get upset.
PatSeg
(46,794 posts)We live in very strange times.
Phoenix61
(16,952 posts)Just what I always wanted, a thief for SCOTUS. What could possibly go wrong?
Friend or Foe
(195 posts)It is imperative to cite your source. It's the ideal behind the maxim of "stare decisis". For Gorsuch to ignore the author of prior works is damning!
dalton99a
(81,065 posts)mountain grammy
(26,568 posts)Bayard
(21,805 posts)Why do they keep pushing that particular lie, and who are they trying to convince?
mountain grammy
(26,568 posts)About as non mainstream as it gets
dogknob
(2,431 posts)You know, like the Monopoly guy. That's supposed to be mainstream.
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)doesn't this require at least a one year investigation of the investigation into benghazi?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Ok, I just made it up.
Tee-hee (snort)
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)Got another shocker for people. Crime actually does pay - often with dividends.
Just depends on who you are.
duncang
(1,907 posts)If he plagiarized sections in his book isn't that grounds to sue? Just thinking a supreme court justice going in to office being sued kind of a wtf moment if it happens.
djg21
(1,803 posts)It would be copyright claim. Ideas are not protectible under copyright law, and the copyright doctrine of merger would be a very strong, if not insurmountable, defense. In any event, the author of the law review article that allegedly was copied would have to bring the action, and she already has gone on record as saying:
"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."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/neil-gorsuch-accused-of-plagiarizing-parts-of-his-book.html. Again, look up the doctrine of merger.