Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, reportedly plagiarized from the Indiana Law Journal and other legal articles without citing them, according to Politico.
A chapter in Gorsuch's 2006 book, "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia," reportedly was nearly identical to a 1984 article in the journal.
The White House denied claims that Gorsuch had plagiarized and called the article a "baseless, last-second smear."
I've never seen a college plagiarism code that this would not be in violation of.
Politico cited six legal experts who decried the work as plagiarism. The White House countered with six legal scholars who worked with Gorsuch or helped oversee his Oxford University dissertation that later became the book. They argued that Gorsuch may have borrowed language or facts without attribution, but did not steal ideas.
Not only is there no fire, there isn't even any smoke.
Politico's analysis of the documents show sentences and phrases copied nearly verbatim from an article by Abigail Lawlis Kuzma titled "The Legislative Response to Infant Doe." Kuzma dismissed the allegations, saying it would have been "awkward and difficult" for Gorsuch to write the sentences differently. But another article on the same case used different language.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) mentioned the Politico article in his marathon Gorsuch protest.
It's a little bit risky, but I wouldn't say it rises to the level of a bad act. I think some people would say it's sloppy.
But some legal experts, like New York University law professor Christopher Sprigman, were hesitant to say Gorsuch had done anything wrong.