Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, March 20, 2017

A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits. ... "He interrupted our class discussion to ask students how many of us knew women who used their companies for maternity benefits, who used their companies to -- in order to have a baby and then leave right away," [Jennifer] Sisk said. She recalled that few students raised their hands and Gorsuch became animated. "He said, 'Come on, guys. All of your hands should be up. Many women do this,'" Sisk said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I would more readily believe that people who are thinking of having children go get a job that has medical benefits if they are thinking of having kids, and I know people with health issues do the same thing. People are trying to solve their problems. That doesn't make it bad.

#1 | Posted by LEgregius at 2017-03-20 03:12 PM | Reply

Decent countries already provide federal maternity leave and separate insurance from employment.

If we want to make things easier for businesses, we should do what the smarter countries do.

Or we could continue to be the only country in the world that ties insurance to employment for some idiotic reason.

#2 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-20 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I've seen many cases of women quitting their jobs when maternity leave is over. I don't think they took the job with that as the intent though.

I have a friend who is planning on quitting his job after he receives 3 months of paid paternity leave. Again, not his intent when he took the job. And he claims his boss is trying to force him out anyway. But he'll be taking the leave knowing full well he is going to quit when it ends.

#3 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-20 03:25 PM | Reply

This just in... The sky is blue.

#4 | Posted by sawdust at 2017-03-20 03:32 PM | Reply

Hearsay at its finest.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-03-20 03:32 PM | Reply

Or we could continue to be the only country in the world that ties insurance to employment for some idiotic reason.

#2 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Are you aware of why that whole process came about in the first place?

*This is not a gotcha or anything like that, just curious if you know why this happened (I know why).

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-20 03:35 PM | Reply

You haven't seen "maternity as a scheme" until you've seen it abused in the military. Obviously, not every female soldier, sailor, airman or marine does this, but I've seen all of these used:

Want to get out of deployment? Be 3 months pregnant. Less if you're scheduled to go to a combat zone.

Overweight? You aren't required to comply with fitness standards while pregnant or for a period of 12 months afterward. Solution? Get pregnant every 21 months.

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-20 03:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This just in... The sky is blue.

#4 | Posted by sawdust at 2017-03-20 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The sky isn't blue it just appears that way due to the reflection off of the water.

#8 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-03-20 04:05 PM | Reply

#8 If you're going to rebut something like his statement you may want to google WHY the sky actually appears blue.

#9 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-03-20 04:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Another Anita Hill.

This is the Democrats go to play for obstruction. They throw poor little helpless women at big authority men hoping to get a reaction.

Very feminist of them.

#10 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-03-20 04:27 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#5 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER
"Hearsay at its finest."

Hearsay, yes.

Finest? No.

#11 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-03-20 04:33 PM | Reply

Are you aware of why that whole process came about in the first place?

*This is not a gotcha or anything like that, just curious if you know why this happened (I know why).

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

I've heard it explained before. WW1 created inflation which created wage controls so employers offered health care as additional compensation. But just because something was created for a certain purpose, doesn't mean it can't outlive that purpose. I'd say WW1 era policies are ripe for reconsideration.

Employer provided healthcare is now objectively illogical.

The fact that no other countries have copied the employer model should tell you everything you need to know. If it was a good solution, others would copy it.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-20 05:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Having Trump for president is like Festivus: the airing of grievances by old, rich, white men.

#13 | Posted by cbob at 2017-03-20 05:53 PM | Reply

Jennifer Sisk is obviously lying because she didn't post it on Twitter and she didn't get it from Breitbart.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-03-20 05:58 PM | Reply

Mothers can be the best employees.

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-03-20 06:50 PM | Reply

I have a solution. Give employers the right to publically request pregnant employees to abort. If they choose not to, then they must be okay with the pregnancy.

#16 | Posted by bored at 2017-03-20 07:13 PM | Reply

demand, not request. Why regulate abortion demands?

#17 | Posted by bored at 2017-03-20 07:14 PM | Reply

well, OF COURSE, he did.....

cue: sarcastic, scoffing laugh

#18 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-20 09:52 PM | Reply

to the bass line before crowd yells CHARGE !

bork, bork, bork, bork----bork bork bork bork----

#19 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-20 09:54 PM | Reply

bork, bork, bork, bork----bork bork bork bork----

Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-20 09:54 PM | Reply

Not even close to being the same. Bork was allowed to go through the system. Garland not even a hearing.

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-03-20 09:55 PM | Reply

Lots of countries have family-friendly policies. For some free reason the people aren't having families anyway.

Denmark and Norway are famously happy countries. They also need immigration from Africa and the ME to keep their population growing, because their own citizens aren't having enough children to replace the ones that are dying.

Maybe they don't like kids, and are happy they're not being born. In their own house at least.

#21 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-03-21 01:00 AM | Reply

Basically because its true. And Trumps paid family leave deal would make it even worse.
It would be the paid hangover law for men..

#22 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-03-21 08:18 AM | Reply

Maybe they don't like kids, and are happy they're not being born.

Or maybe it's because most developed countries see a decline in birth rates as other factors like wages, health, longevity, education, equality, access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed, etc., increase.

#23 | Posted by dylanfan at 2017-03-21 11:02 AM | Reply

Want to get out of deployment? Be 3 months pregnant. Less if you're scheduled to go to a combat zone.

I commanded three times and each time I ran into this. Now some women, they would deploy, not tell you until they had to, I would send them back to the rear and four weeks after having the baby, she would be back in theater. Those are the soldiers that I knew wasn't expecting to have a kid.

But then there were the others. Everytime her unit was scheduled to deploy, she got pregnant. You would see them, everyone has a combat patch on except her and she' been in the unit five years.

It's nothing new. Soldiers gonna find a way to duck work..

#24 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-21 11:44 AM | Reply

"Soldiers gonna find a way to duck work.." - #24 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-21 11:44 AM

This post speaks volumes...

...unintentional volumes, no doubt...

...but volumes nonetheless.

#25 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-21 11:50 AM | Reply

#25 | Posted by Hans

Only to a troll like you...

#26 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-21 02:31 PM | Reply

#25 Not really, since Beetle Bailey has been in print for 65 years, and MASH ran for 11. I'm pretty sure the stereotype is well known. There are always a few in every unit.

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-21 02:58 PM | Reply

I find it ironic that people say "this speaks volumes" in place of formulating even one coherent criticism of something or someone they don't like.

Yeah sure, it speaks "volumes" but you can't even muster one sentence that actually addresses it in any meaningful way.

#28 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-21 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They call the Specialist Rank (E4) the "sham shield" for a reason.

#29 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-03-21 03:29 PM | Reply

issue over.....find some other nonsense.....

Jennifer Sisk, a 2016 graduate of the University of Colorado Law School, wrote a scathing letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday. In the letter, Sisk detailed her account of Gorsuch's telling his law students that "many" women manipulate their employer's maternity benefits after giving birth.

Multiple media outlets including NBC News, NPR, and Think Progress first reported on this allegation without any mention of Sisk's ties to Democrats. (Some news outlets, including NPR, updated their stories hours after publication.)

Sisk is a former political appointee in the Obama administration and also worked as an aide to former Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat from Colorado.

Her work in Udall's office is documented in the University of Colorado's Alumni Association Magazine. Her time in the Interior Department during the Obama administration is confirmed on page 83 of the government's 2012 "Plum Book," a publication containing data on "over 8,000 federal civil service leadership and support positions." The book lists Sisk as a "SC appointment," which stands for "Schedule C Excepted Appointment."

#30 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-21 03:32 PM | Reply

MAIN REASON this non issue is bunk.....

On Monday, a group of 11 female former law clerks for Gorsuch stepped forward to defend him from Sisk's allegation.

Janie Nitze, who worked for the Justice Department under President Barack Obama and also clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is one of them.

In a statement to The Daily Signal, she said:

I served as a clerk for Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for a year, working day in and day out with him in chambers. Not for one second did I ever feel that he treated me with anything other than the utmost respect -- as he did all law clerks. And he has continued to be an invaluable mentor to me over the years, playing a critical role in each of my career advances.

As I noted in an interview weeks before the current allegations surfaced, the judge is usually the first person I go to for career advice. And the first words he has for me when I do are: ‘What can I do to help you?'

The suggestion that he ‘discounts the worth of working females' is patently absurd, and refuted entirely by my decadelong experience with him and by the experiences of all of his former female law clerks, who collectively sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on this topic.

#31 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-21 03:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Babbles quoting daily signal without proper attribution. Shame fer shame.

#32 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-03-21 03:36 PM | Reply

Will Hauptman, a current law student at the University of Colorado who says he was in the same class as Sisk, also claims Sisk is misrepresenting the account. According to his LinkedIn profile, Hauptman has clerked for Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, a Republican.

"Although Judge Gorsuch did discuss some of the topics mentioned in the letter, he did not do so in the manner described," Hauptman wrote.

"The judge was very matter-of-fact in that we would face difficult decisions; he himself recalled working late nights when he had a young child with whom he wished to share more time," Hauptman continued. "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."

www.youtube.com

NEXT !!!

#33 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-21 03:36 PM | Reply

It's nothing new. Soldiers gonna find a way to duck work..

#24 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Anyone who actually WANTS to go to war needs to have their head examined.

That being said does getting pregnant and creating another human mean "ducking work" to you?

Never raised a child for 18 years I take it. Having a child is an honorable thing, arguably even more honorable than going to war, and is actually creating work for oneself.

It is disgusting and shallow how short sighted people like you are.

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-21 03:57 PM | Reply

#34 Be careful when you step down off that high horse. We've already said that we certainly weren't referring to all female soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, not even the majority. We are saying that it happens, and most of us that served 20 or 30 years have seen it personally, and probably more than once.

#35 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-21 04:16 PM | Reply

Another important issue facing the nation. Never you mind what Goldman-Sachs does or what williams did to California during the California Energy crisis. Let's focus on pregnant women. Next up abortion and birth control. Pure Conservative thought in a nutshell.

#36 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-03-21 07:56 PM | Reply

#36 Nut, the story is about a liberal Obama appointee accusing Gorsuch of making a comment about pregnant women. If you're concerned about the content of this thread, blame her.

#37 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-22 07:39 AM | Reply


Never raised a child for 18 years I take it. Having a child is an honorable thing, arguably even more honorable than going to war, and is actually creating work for oneself.
It is disgusting and shallow how short sighted people like you are.
#34 | Posted by donnerboy

Never been a commander in the military I take it.

1. I've raised two so far past the age of 18 with one on the way...
2. I never said having children was not worthy. I wasn't attacking women having children. It's their right. So what. But when you are in a profession that requires you to not be pregnant at certain times, it's inherent for you to be prepared for your job. Or not take the job. The military medical system issues birth control if women want it to ensure they don't get pregnant at the wrong times if they choose. Getting pregnant right before a deployment is suspect at the least. It hurts unit moral and unit readiness, especially if the woman was in a high needed job. Now some women, it would truly not be planned and you could tell in the way she made it so it didn't hurt the unit. I've even had some women not tell me as their commander they were pregnant just so they could deploy for the first half of the year. We've had women stay in theater for most of their pregnancy, refusing to leave, go home, have the baby and almost be back for redeployment. Those are the troopers.

I wasn't attacking women having children, don't put words in my mouth.

#38 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-22 08:16 AM | Reply

Either Gorsuch made the comment, which reflects poorly on his character as a Corporate shill as opposed to a human being, or he didn't. Although everyone in the class probably was not paying attention at the time, the truth of the student's claim could be easily verified. But then truth hardly mattered during the Thomas hearings or Clinton's impeachment either. Different times than Nixon's impeachment.

Gorsuch's candidacy is a reflection of how vicious Rethugs are and docile Wussies are. This seat is likely stolen in violation of the constitution, so allegedly sacred to Scalia and Gorsuch. It is a sick joke to watch the Wussies roll over for the Rethugs. But then their first duty is to big money, so letting this thing go and disenfranchising Bernie, the most popular politician in the USA by a wide margin, is more important.

It is common knowledge that Trump is openly violating the emoluments clause of our constitution and so far nothing is being done about that either.

#39 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-03-22 08:29 AM | Reply

#39 I wouldn't say it is either common knowledge, or even clear that is the case.

www.washingtonpost.com

#40 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-22 08:34 AM | Reply

What can you expect from a stupid publication like the Post? I think too much is often made of value limits for personal gifts between State Leaders. But, Trump's $16,000 a night hotel rooms close to the White House, which he has openly encouraged diplomats and lobbyists to use, is in a class all its own. Conway's widely condemned promotion of Ivanka's clothing line pales in comparison. The same thing is happening in Mar-a-Lago and other parts of the world. His children began selling access immediately. Its time to stop collecting money for profoundly dishonest campaign promises and govern in a manner consistent with his oath of office. But don't hold your breath for that to happen.

#41 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-03-22 08:55 AM | Reply

I wasn't attacking women having children, don't put words in my mouth.

#38 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yes, you were. And isn't it interesting how you put the support of War above supporting Life?

"But when you are in a profession that requires you to not be pregnant at certain times, it's inherent for you to be prepared for your job. Or not take the job. The military medical system issues birth control if women want it to ensure they don't get pregnant at the wrong times..."

Now isn't that interesting? Ok for the "military medical system" to issue birth control for support of war but not ok for the ACA to issue birth control for the support of women trying to have a peacetime career.

You people are such hypocrites.

Like I indicated. You need your head examined.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-22 12:25 PM | Reply

I wasn't attacking women having children, don't put words in my mouth.

#38 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yes, you were...(blather)

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-22 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Give it a rest. There is no sense in virtue signaling when the whole sham is based on a fabrication, aka lie. He wasn't attacking Motherhood or saying "War is better than Life" or whatever other crap you want to throw against the wall. He was relaying his perception of events he experienced and you no nothing about.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-22 01:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort