No products in the cart.


A Smear Implodes: Former Dem Aide Accuses Gorsuch of Sexism, Gets Refuted By Fellow Student

Guy Benson  Posted: Mar 21, 2017


We discussed the reasons why Judge Neil Gorsuch is quite likely to be installed on the Supreme Court following this week’s hearings in an earlier post: In short, he’s eminently qualified and universally esteemed, Democrats lack the votes to stop him (barring a further escalation of tactics that have already burned them badly, and that can be overcome through retaliatory maneuvers), and opponents have failed to settle on a coherent approach to impede his confirmation. But that doesn’t mean that Senate Democrats and left-wing interest groups — who have worked hand-in-glove in the past — aren’t up to their usual tricks. When they don’t have a substantive case to prosecute, there’s always the scurrilous character assassination card to play.  New York Magazineis on it, publishing a piece that quickly began making the rounds on Lefty social media.  “Surprise” number one:

Jennifer Sisk, who graduated from the University of Colorado Law School last year, says that 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.”

This is remarkably thin gruel on its face, especially since the key charge rests on an inference of something Gorsuch allegedly “implied.” But the gruel gets thinner.  Surprise number two, courtesy of Glenn Reynolds:

The quoted “former student,” identified by New York Magazine as one “Jennifer Sisk, who graduated from the 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, then worked as an aide in Mark Udall’s Senate office in Washington.”) New York Magazine leaves that rather important fact out.

But of course. This concerned former student just happens to have worked as a Democratic operative (on behalf of Colorado’s hapless and defeated “Senator Uterus”), which colors her credibility. In fairness, though, just because she’s an explicitly partisan actor doesn’t necessarily mean that her concerns should be dismissed entirely out of hand. Maybe she has a point. Perhaps an independent assessment from another student who was in the classroom for that discussion could be illuminating.  Surprise number three, via Ed Morrissey:

But in a letter provided to NBC News on Monday by a person helping with the Gorsuch nomination process, another former student wrote to the committee to refute Sisk’s claims. “Although Judge Gorsuch did discuss some of the topics mentioned in the letter, he did not do so in the manner described,” Will Hauptman wrote in the letter, which was sent on Sunday. Hauptman wrote that 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.


[ot-video type=”youtube” url=””]

Read more at Townhall

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.




One comment

  1. I have been watching these hearings. I missed a few parts but from what I have seen, Gorsuch seems to be the perfect pick. no bias, no bullshit just hands down constitutional law. I wish they were all like him. Unfortunatly, There are too many political hacks currently sitting on the court and they were obviously appointed for political purposes in an effort to sway the court in favor of the political views of those who appointed them. I do no believe that to be what the founding fathers intended. Looks like Mr Gorsuch will be on the bench no matter what. Its a shame he has to endure the nasty attitudes of idiots like Al Franken in the process. Franken is nothing more than a failed comedian posing as a public servant.

Comments are closed.