Gorsuch's Plagiarism Is Worthy of Embarrassment

[Political Junky]

How will the Right rationalize this?

Gorsuch's Plagiarism Is Worthy of Embarrassment

There’s no doubt that in at least one extended passage, Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, copied wording from an article in the Indiana Law Journal with only trivial changes and without citing the article. There’s even a footnote that’s replicated verbatim from the article, down to the exact same use of ellipses in citing a pediatrics textbook. In academic settings, this would be considered plagiarism, albeit of a fairly minor kind. And the citation of the textbook -- a primary source -- while failing to cite the article -- a secondary source -- implies knowing borrowing, rather than an accident.

 

[2aguy]

Dumb ass...the woman quoted stated it wasn't plagiarism.........try something else....this didn't even last one news cycle.....

Bastardized Charges

Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, the author of the law-review article, repudiates the plagiarism charges:

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.

Georgetown professor John Keown, one of the outside examiners of Gorsuch’s Oxford dissertation on which the book was based, calls the allegations of plagiarism “unsubstantiated” and praises the book as “meticulous in its citation of primary sources.”

Further: “The allegation that the book is guilty of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same primary sources is very wide of the mark.” (I’ve revised this paragraph to reflect Professor Keown’s updated remarks.)

Read more at: Bastardized Charges

 

[Political Junky]

Dumb ass...the guy quoted stated it wasn't plagiarism.........try something else....this didn't even last one news cycle.....

Bastardized Charges

He didn't cite the piece he stole from.

 

[2aguy]

Dumb ass...the guy quoted stated it wasn't plagiarism.........try something else....this didn't even last one news cycle.....

Bastardized Charges

He didn't cite the piece he stole from.

Keep pushing this crap...I am sure he will find it funny after he is on the bench......

 

[2aguy]

Dumb ass...the guy quoted stated it wasn't plagiarism.........try something else....this didn't even last one news cycle.....

Bastardized Charges

He didn't cite the piece he stole from.

Moron......

Dr. Chris Mammen, a fellow student of Gorsuch’s at Oxford, emphasizes that the “standard practice in a dissertation is to cite the underlying original source, not a secondary source, that supports a factual statement.”




Oxford professor emeritus John Finnis, who supervised Gorsuch’s dissertation and has reviewed the charges, says that “none of the allegations has any substance or justification” and that 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.”

At least four other academics have reviewed and rejected the plagiarism charges. But that evidently won’t stop some newspapers from scurrilously spreading them. (I will add in links to the quotes when they’re available online.)

Read more at: Bastardized Charges

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dumb ass...the guy quoted stated it wasn't plagiarism.........try something else....this didn't even last one news cycle.....

Bastardized Charges

He didn't cite the piece he stole from.

You simply cannot read. Get some professional help.

 

[Political Junky]

I was right .. watch the Right rationalize plagiarism.

 

[DarkFury]

How will the Right rationalize this?

Gorsuch's Plagiarism Is Worthy of Embarrassment

There’s no doubt that in at least one extended passage, Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, copied wording from an article in the Indiana Law Journal with only trivial changes and without citing the article. There’s even a footnote that’s replicated verbatim from the article, down to the exact same use of ellipses in citing a pediatrics textbook. In academic settings, this would be considered plagiarism, albeit of a fairly minor kind. And the citation of the textbook -- a primary source -- while failing to cite the article -- a secondary source -- implies knowing borrowing, rather than an accident.

The story was DE-BUNKED four hours after it came out. What a f#ckin waste of time you are.

 

[DarkFury]

Dumb ass...the woman quoted stated it wasn't plagiarism.........try something else....this didn't even last one news cycle.....

Bastardized Charges

Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, the author of the law-review article, repudiates the plagiarism charges:

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.

Georgetown professor John Keown, one of the outside examiners of Gorsuch’s Oxford dissertation on which the book was based, calls the allegations of plagiarism “unsubstantiated” and praises the book as “meticulous in its citation of primary sources.”

Further: “The allegation that the book is guilty of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same primary sources is very wide of the mark.” (I’ve revised this paragraph to reflect Professor Keown’s updated remarks.)

Read more at: Bastardized Charges

I guess this idiot OP is to f#ckin stupid to realize that ANY or at least almost ANY and EVERY legal opine is BASED on what has ALREADY been written. So according to this idiot OP ANYONE who quotes the writings of the Constitution Or the Bill of Rights is stealing. What a f#cking moron.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How will the Right rationalize this?

Gorsuch's Plagiarism Is Worthy of Embarrassment

There’s no doubt that in at least one extended passage, Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, copied wording from an article in the Indiana Law Journal with only trivial changes and without citing the article. There’s even a footnote that’s replicated verbatim from the article, down to the exact same use of ellipses in citing a pediatrics textbook. In academic settings, this would be considered plagiarism, albeit of a fairly minor kind. And the citation of the textbook -- a primary source -- while failing to cite the article -- a secondary source -- implies knowing borrowing, rather than an accident.

The story was DE-BUNKED four hours after it came out. What a f#ckin waste of time you are.

Yeah and there was a thread on this yesterday

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I was right .. watch the Right rationalize plagiarism.

Still can't read? Get some one to read it for you. Even the author said it is not plagiarism.

 

[Political Junky]

I was right .. watch the Right rationalize plagiarism.

Still can't read? Get some one to read it for you. Even the author said it is not plagiarism.

Apparently he didn't know what plagiarism is either.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I was right .. watch the Right rationalize plagiarism.

Still can't read? Get some one to read it for you. Even the author said it is not plagiarism.

Apparently he didn't know what plagiarism is either.

Democrats are usually the one's guilty of plagiarism.

Obama and Biden being the most noteworthy.