Neil Gorsuch, geesh.

Is this where you now shift the subject since this accusation just died.

 

I tend to just ignore them. I have a lot more time for the owner of the business though, will happily leave if asked to do so.

 

"NPR is standing by reporting from its legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, alleging that Justice Neil Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice John Roberts that the he don a mask on the bench — a request that Totenberg implied was made by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is diabetic.

All three justices disputed Totenberg’s story on Wednesday.

First, Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch issued a joint statement stating that “reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”

Then, Chief Justice Roberts issued a separate statement insisting that he “did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench.”"
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/npr-stands-by-supreme-court-mask-story-despite-denials/

The benefit of the doubt still there? Or will you claim all three justices are lying?

 

an NPR spokesman told CNBC that the outlet stands by its story.

 

So the three justices are lying and you place the word of an unnamed source over their public statements? Tell me why they don't get the benefit of the doubt?

 

Of course they do.

 

All of them should refuse to wear a mask. She doesn't like it? Quit.

 

Sure, all three Justices are lying, but Fake News NPR and CNBC are telling the truth? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHA!

So, we all three named principles on the record denying this fake news, so who is the source for the claims?

Who is the NPR "spokesman" referred to in your quote?

 

This is unacceptable behavior.. good things it’s not true. This report has been jointly debunked by Sotomayor and Gorsuch

 

Another example of the OP being dupped by fake news but even after expose he rides it all the way down.

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh........nope.

“Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us,” Sotomayor and Gorsuch said in the statement. “It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.”

That statement did not address the key question of whether Roberts had asked the justices to wear masks. It denied that Sotomayor herself had asked Gorsuch to wear a mask, which is not what NPR reported.

..............................................................................
Here's the key assertion in the story from Tuesday's Morning Edition: "The situation had changed, and, according to court sources, Sotomayor did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked. Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form or other, asked the other justices to mask up."

Later Tuesday on All Things Considered, she changed the word "asked" to "suggested," saying, "So Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form or other, suggested that the other justices mask up."

Exactly how did Roberts, in some form, ask or suggest that his colleagues cover up? Totenberg told me she hedged on this: "If I knew exactly how he communicated this I would say it. Instead I said 'in some form.' "

That phrasing is at the core of the dispute. Totenberg said she has multiple, solid sources familiar with the inner workings of the court who told her that Roberts conveyed something to his fellow justices about Sotomayor's concerns in the face of the omicron wave. Totenberg said her NPR editors were aware of who those sources are and stood by the reporting.

Totenberg and her editors should have chosen a word other than "asked." And she could have been clear about how she knew there was subtle pressure to wear masks (the nature or even exact number of her anonymous sources) and what she didn't know (exactly how Roberts was communicating).
https://www.npr.org/sections/public...e-court-mask-controversy-merits-clarification

 

Good call!
No need to cave to rabid progs - they will never be respectful, no matter what you do.

 

See post #136. BTW, Gorsuch is still a dick.

 

1. If Justice Sotomayor is so vulnerable, it should not go out in public, rather than demanding the world bend to accommodate its special needs. I am responsible for my own health - a justice of the USSC is no different.
2. This whole story has been proven to be 100% bullashartz.

 

And to Karen at the gym: Stay home if you are scared of the Chinese cooties. A piece of cloth on your face is 100% useless when you are under heavy respiration, as in a gym.

 

I would have used a different verb.

 

Straw man.

 

The story originated on NPR, who is starting to resemble the Onion, and so many liberal news services parroted it without checking the validity of the story. And then parrots parrot the parrots.

 

The problem with that position is there is no scientific merit to back it up. Any face covering short of an industrial respirator is nothing but decoration - a talisman. It provides nothing more than a false sense of security (and obviously superiority). If the justice was so legitimately concerned about its health, it would have simply stayed home and worked remotely instead if demanding the world bend to its arbitrary special needs.

 

NPR issued a straight forward clarification. If it's beyond your ability to comprehend that's not on them.

 

Doing it because they asked has nothing to do with science. Assuming they actually asked, anyway.

 

I keep seeing this false claim about masking coming up. What's up with that?

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

 

You've just made my point. You concede the request is meaningless virtue signal connoting the self-styled superiority of the requestor. In other words, I might ask you to paint an orange star on your forehead due to my superstitious belief that orange stars protect me from evil spirits. If you refuse you are what is it? A dick?

 

Yep when you insist everyone else do something that is not medically beneficial because

You mean you don't know anyone who can afford a doormat?

 

Fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.