The attempts at “Borking” Judge Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearings hasn’t gone as planned.
Democrats don’t have the votes to prevent Gorsuch from being nominated, but any smear will still do. Among one of them is sourced from a former student of Gorsuch’s, Jennifer Sisk, a graduate of the University of Colorado’s Law School.
According to her in an “explosive” New York Magazine “exposé,” “during a Legal Ethics and Professionalism class last spring, Gorsuch told his students that companies should ask women about their pregnancy plans during job interviews, and claimed that many women plan to manipulate their employers by taking maternity leave, then quitting to stay home with their children. Sisk sent a two-page letter describing the incident to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. It was posted on Sunday night by the National Employment Lawyers Association and the National Women’s Law Center…He told them that “all our hands should be raised because ‘many’ women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born.” She says he “implied that women intentionally manipulate companies and plan to disadvantage their companies, starting from the first interview.”
What a charge – based entirely on what this student thought Gorsuch “implied.” To little surprise, Sisk is also a former operative for Democrat Mark Udall, who was a Senator from 2009-2015.
Of course, her political allegiance doesn’t make her wrong, but what would a nonpartisan student glean from Gorsuch’s comments? Another former student, Will Hauptman stated that “Although Judge Gorsuch did discuss some of the topics mentioned in the letter, he did not do so in the manner described.” He continued, “Gorsuch often asked his students to consider the challenges they would face as new attorneys, including the tension between building a career and starting a family, especially for women. “The seriousness with which the judge asked us to consider these realities reflected his desire to make us aware of them, not any animus against a career or group,” he wrote.”
Gorsuch’s comments were either purposefully misconstrued by Sisk, or she’s the kind of college snowflake who happens to read into comments in the manner she did.
As we noted earlier today, Democrats unanimously supported Gorsuch when he was a Bush nominee. What changed this time besides the resident?
[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]