The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Leaks from SCOTUS About Maskgate!? (Updated with statements from Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts)
I hope these leaks do not augur further leaks about Dobbs and other cases.
Back in September, I celebrated the fact that there were no ostensible leaks from the Supreme Court to the press. Joan Biskupic, who once had more leaks than a plumber, came up dry. Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts did not have to resign.
Fast-forward to January 18. Several journalists reported on a leak, of some sort, from the Supreme Court. No, we do not have inside information about Dobbs, or the shadow docket, or pending retirement news. We have leaks about Maskgate. Yes, the decision of Justice Gorsuch not to wear a mask on the bench.
First, Nina Totenberg include this tidbit in her published report:
Now, though, the situation had changed with the omicron surge, 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 asked the other justices to mask up.
They all did. Except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices' weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.
When I read these paragraphs, I immediately perked up. Somehow, Totenberg reported on something Chief Justice Roberts did. What exactly he did, we are not sure. But Roberts took some action. Co-Blogger Jon Adler also picked up on Totenberg's reporting:
The particular wording of Totenberg's report (italicized above) caught my eye. What does it mean that the Chief Justice asked the other justices "in some form"? Totenberg is a careful reporter, so this extra language is there for a reason. Just as reporters are often very careful about how they characterize anonymous sources, this qualifying language is serving some purpose. At the least, it suggests that there was not a formal, direct request from the Chief to all of the other justices, but something less than that (or that is all Totenberg's source was willing to say.
Later in the day, Totenberg appeared on All Things Considered. She repeated her claim, almost verbatim.
But now with the omicron surge, the situation had changed. And according to court sources, Sotomayor didn't feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked. So Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form or other suggested that the other justices mask up. And they all did, except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal also meant that Sotomayor did not attend the justices' weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone. And she will do it again this week.
Her comment on the live broadcast here was nearly identical to her comment in print--thought she added "some form or other." Again, Totenberg seems to be writing based on inside information.
Tuesday evening, Ariane de Vogue published a similar account on CNN, with more details:
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has been listening to arguments remotely from her chambers because she doesn't feel comfortable sitting on the bench near colleagues who are not masked, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Here we have a single source, not multiple sources. And it does not say a source within the Court, or some such qualifier. It merely says a "source familiar with situation." Who knows how this source would have inside info?
Later in the piece, we get this paragraph:
At the beginning of the term, Sotomayor wore a mask on the bench at many cases. Another source familiar with the situation said that after Omicron surged, Sotomayor expressed her concerns to Chief Justice John Roberts. The source said she did not directly ask Gorsuch to wear a mask. She has participated remotely during arguments this month.
Ah, now we have "another source." It is not clear if this source is the same source referenced in the first paragraph, although the accounts seem similar enough. How did this private conversation between Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor leak to the public?
Finally, Shannon Bream appeared on Fox News to respond to Totenberg's reporting. She said:
"A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments. The source further stated Justice Sotomayor did not make any such request to Justice Gorsuch. I'm told, given that fact, there was no refusal by Justice Gorsuch."
????EXCLUSIVE@FoxNews Supreme Court reporter @ShannonBream airs inaccurate reporting today by @NinaTotenberg:
"A source at the Supreme Court says there has been no blanket admonition or request from Chief Justice Roberts that the other Justices begin wearing masks to arguments." pic.twitter.com/petcj6q1nK
— ???????? Mike Davis ???????? (@mrddmia) January 19, 2022
Here, we have "a source at the Supreme Court," and not just a "source familiar with the situation." So that source seems closer to the Court. But the statement is not very helpful. Roberts may have done something short of a "blanket admonition or request." Totenberg's carefully crafted statement suggests something more subtle may have been done. Also, Bream agrees with De Vogue that Sotomayor did not ask Gorsuch directly.
I am not sure what to make of these leaks. Somehow, private conversations are getting to the press. Three journalists each have consistent accounts, with slightly different shadings. I hope these leaks do not augur further leaks about Dobbs and other cases. Things have been relatively quiet. I am still on the lookout for a spate of writings, in short order, about the abortion case. Like with Bostock, that pattern suggests something is afoot.
Update: Marcia Coyle addressed this situation on Wednesday morning:
NPR reported this week that the justices, with the exception of Gorsuch, agreed to wear masks at the request of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who "understanding" Sotomayor's discomfort at being in close proximity to non-mask wearers, made his request "in some form."
NPR also said Gorsuch's "continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices' weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone."
So, mask mystery solved? Maybe not.
Our court sources say Roberts made no such mask request, and the timeline for Sotomayor's decision to go remote does not work with that claim as well.
Of course, this is the problem with unnamed sources which is especially the bane of SCOTUS reporters' existence. One part of the NPR report most court watchers agree with is "Gorsuch, from the beginning of his tenure, has proved a prickly justice."
"Court sources," plural? And I don't think Totenberg actually said that Roberts made a formal request. There was something short of that. This episode is starting to get silly.
Update 2: Now Justice Sotomayor has released a statement:
Just in: Statement by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Gorsuch: 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.
Just in: Statement by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Gorsuch:
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.— Robert Barnes (@robert_a_barnes) January 19, 2022
This entire enterprise is so stupid. Please, no more unsourced leaks?
Update: This story continues to get stupider. Chief Justice Roberts had to release a statement indicating that he did not ask anyone to wear a mask.
"I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench."
MORE JUST IN on Maskgate, this time from the Chief Justice: "I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other Justice to wear a mask on the bench."
— Robert Barnes (@robert_a_barnes) January 19, 2022
Can we please let this story die?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Toobin on twitter is promoting a rumor that there is about to be a scotus retirement. unsourced, uncorroborated, might or might not involve a leak.
Did Toobin have his pants on?
No one knows. No one will ever know. Most likely, we are not meant to know.
Huh? It appears that two journalists have very similar accounts, while the third has an account that says exactly the opposite.
Nah. Bream's account, like the others, says that Sotomayor has not asked Gorsuch to wear a mask. And the others, by saying "in some form or other requested..." essentially agree with Bream's account that Roberts has not issued "blanket admonition or request," their weak wording is just meant to spin it the other direction. Also, Bream says that her source indicates that there was "no refusal from Gorsuch." The other reports don't claim a refusal from Gorsuch, simply observe that he is not wearing a mask. Altogether, they're reporting the same basic facts, just spinning them in the way that is most favorable to the narrative they want to advance.
And yet the headline in the local liberal paper today is "Justice Gorsuch reportedly refused to wear mask during Supreme Court arguments".
Great job media. How about asking the obvious question - why doesn't the vaxxed and presumably boosted wise latina(x?) want to be in close quarters with her similarly situated colleague when she just voted to allow the federal government to mandate vaccinations in the name of workplace safety because of that expressed purpose. Also, how about some coverage about how masks don't work with social distancing. Maybe "follow the science" there too. But that isn't the point of the article. It is a hit piece of Gorsuch for refusing to play his role as a dancing monkey in our ongoing Covid theater. Our media is now nothing but an extension of the DNC.
Bingo!
Bingo!!
Jimmy the Dane
January.19.2022 at 1:08 am
Flag Comment Mute User
"Great job media. How about asking the obvious question - why doesn't the vaxxed and presumably boosted wise latina(x?) want to be in close quarters with her similarly situated colleague "
How about the other obvious question - Why doesnt the wise latino start exercising and dieting to improve her health. Why should Gorsuch or any other person be responsible for her 50+ years of her unhealthy habits.
I think one of two explanations is probable:
1) There is no knowledgeable source. This is Kremlinology and the "source" is somebody who has no more of a clue than the reporters themselves, they're observing little things and jumping to conclusions to make themselves useful as sources because the real sources have dried up.
Or 2) The first "source" is Sotomayor herself, too childish to ask Gorsuch herself, she's resorted to whining to a media source and smearing him in the press to get her way. And Bream's "source" is Gorsuch or his representatives reacting...
My money's on explanation #1. With the huge uptick in cases going on right now, and her health issues, Sotomayor is safer staying at home, masks or no. And that is probably the reason she is staying home, not Gorsuch's masklessness. My guess is that the reporters have the sequence of cause and effect out of order. Gorsuch is not wearing a mask because Sotomayor is staying home, and he would wear one if she chose to attend in person. But that's just a guess.
She’s fat and lazy. Her obesity is a huge risk factor. Her laziness is why she’d rather sit on her big butt at home.
She was in chambers, not at home.
She has taken remarkably good care of herself since her diabetes began, when she was seven years old. That is why she still has both of her legs, and is able to see.
Gorsuch is a cad. He should be required to wear only a diaper, and to suck his thumb when he's not speaking, and to keep his thumb in his mouth and talk around it when he is speaking.
(And, just for good measure, someone should buy Daniel Arthur Mead's prosthesis, and slap Clarence Thomas with it from time to time.)
ntelligent Mr Toad
January.19.2022 at 3:48 am
Flag Comment Mute User
She has taken remarkably good care of herself since her diabetes began, when she was seven years old"
No she hasnt - not even close to taking care of her self. Ginsberg on the other hand did quite a lot to maintain her health in spite of her cancer. She deserves credit for that.
m4..,
"Her obesity is a huge risk factor."
This is a claim based on no data save warnings from the CDC at the earliest stages of the pandemic in 2020. The claim is outright false unless there are other reasons why her immunity is compromised.
Finally your post is uncivil. Clean up your act.
Re: Uncivil comment (word choice)
Agreed, not suitable for polite discourse. Shall we call it ad feminam?
My money is on #2.
It's Sotomayor, or one of her clerks/staff for her. All of the comments were either to the "court in general" or specific requests from Sotomayor to a single person, or about Sotomayor's own feelings.
Reporters don't engage in "Kremlinology" like this...their sources will know better.
" Somehow, private conversations are getting to the press. "
Communications and activities concerning the public's business.
If you're that scared of COVID mask or no mask you should not be coming in anyway. If you think its such a super duper killer disease why would a flimsy paper barrier put you at ease and raring to spend hours cooped with with dozens of potential carriers? By lib logic Gorsuch did her a favor by scaring her off and potentially saving her life.
That might actually be a good idea, seriously. For Sotomayor to work from home, I mean. A 68 year old diabetic whose disease began when she was seven years old is delicate.
Amazing to see the masks are tyranny folks come out against the freedom they can't stop yelling about the moment it gives them a bit of partisan benefit.
what freedom? Gorsuch's freedom to not wear a mask or wise latina's freedom to come in? Nobody's barring her from coming in. Its just logical not to if you think COVID is Ebola 2.0.
No one is arguing COVID is Ebola 2.0.
Actions speak louder than words
Actions demanded show that lots of people believe it’s ebola 2.0
Sure, dude. Lotsa people in full Hazmat.
Don't double down on hyperbole.
lockdowns demanded , masks demanded, vaccine mandates demanded
Nope no Hyperbole here
Actions speak louder than words
Something can be risky enough to warrant those measures and not be Ebola, even if you disagree.
You're just trolling.
Covid is not that risky.
If the vaccines work, then masks, social distancing, all that lockdown crap is unnecessary.
If all that lockdown crap is necessary, then the vaccines don't work.
It's like Obama buying a sea level mansion in spite of claiming to believe that AGW will raise sea levels. Whatcha gonna believe, Obama's words or his purchase?
Sotomayor doesn't believe vaccines work, or she's signalling political virtue.
Covid is not that risky.
Says you. Opinions quite clearly differ.
If all that lockdown crap is necessary, then the vaccines don't work.
If seatbelts are still necessary, anti-lock breaks don't work.
S-O.
I am afraid you started this pissing match. Why keep it going?
"Covid is not that risky. Says you. Opinions quite clearly differ."
But in fact for most people a variant with a fatality rate maybe 2x seasonal flu is not that risky. If, however, one is immuno-compromised, has a hematologic cancer, or chronic kidney disease, a person should be scared of such a highly infectious disease that that defied "booster binges" to try to stop its spread.
The booster binges seem to have lowered the rate of hospitalization and ICU admission. So that is a good thing. Still people with elevated risk conditions are wise to stay vigilant and work fro home when possible.
Alphabet is trying to reify is opinion into the objective truth.
I am not.
Riiiight, Sarcastr0, you are noble and wise and everybody else has evil intent.
Didn't say anything about my virtue, chief.
I'm not the one trying to insist the Justices follow my opinion about the risks.
@Sarcastr0:
I didn't say anything about your virtue.
I have never pretended anybody should do as I say.
But if it makes you feel better to virtue signal by making stuff up, I sure can't stop you, and I won't even tell you to stop.
You are pretending 'Covid is not that risky' is a factual statement. It is not.
You are also pretending noble and wise are not virtues, for reasons of I presume pedantry.
She has special risk factors. ("Co-morbidities", in the lingo.) Diabetic since age seven. Now rapidly approaching age 70, which is the median life-span for a very-early-onset type-one diabetic. She could easily be immunocompromised.
"She could easily be immuno-compromised."
She could be. But there is no way for you or I to know that outside of her having a battery of genetic tests that we are privy to.
She may not even know the degree she is at elevated risk (if any). But it is her choice to decide whether she assumes she does have elevated risk and what actions she takes in light of that
I don't think we need to frantically parse every odd word; the truth will be made clear in the next few days without this 'reading what you want into ambiguities' exercise.
Sarcastr0, I worry more about the long-term effect of leaking conversations between the justices. They operate on the 'honor system' (quaint, I know). That requires a level of trust and collegiality. Reporting like this destroys both.
Yes, it will all come out, whatever that is. But the damage is done.
Indeed, it does. I suspect these leaks are from Sotomayor or one of her clerks/staff, since everything was "in general" or related to Sotomayor.
Ultimately, it may limit private disclosures between Sotomayor and the rest of the court.
I mean, it all has to do with Gorsuch or the Chief justice as well.
No point in speculating. Well there is if you just want to buttress you hate for Sotomayor, I suppose.
As the update from Justice Sotomayor (and Gorsuch) indicate, it had nothing to do with CJ Roberts or Justice Gorsuch since it was completely false reporting (surprise!).
This media reporting (behavior) is exactly what destroys trust and collegiality.
Not endorsing these leaks, but having read some bios of the Justices in the Burger years, this is a factor, but hardly the main one.
I also am not convinced it was a justice, so this elimination game seems not correct to me.
Er, the update from Sotomayor and Gorsuch says that Sotomayor didn't ask Gorsuch. It doesn't say that Sotomayor didn't ask Roberts who asked Gorsuch.
But, now, the new update from Roberts really does close that loophole. So, yes, it's a total non-issue now.
Everything had Sotomayor as a common point.
Sotomayor and Gorsuch. Or Sotomayor and the Chief. Or Sotomayor's feelings.
There's one common point.
That's a whole different issue. I don't love it either, but I'm pretty sure this isn't coming from the Justices themselves.
" the truth will be made clear in the next few days "
where do you get that idea?
The basic outlines are know to people who study the data carefully. What is not known is what to do about it that is effective and not some cumbersome that people will actually comply.
Also leftists don't really seem that confident in the vaxx if they believe one fully vaxxed (I assume Gorsuch is vaxxed because no NYT expose has come out yet) dude taking off his paper mask puts another fully vaxxed person in mortal peril.
"...every justice is vaccinated, boosted, and that they get tested before gathering for arguments."
So, yes, what's the concern here if everyone is vaxed and boosted and TESTED before arguments?
People keep explaining how risk works, and how it's not a step function.
Pretty good sign of bad faith how you folks keep 'forgetting.'
Pretty good sign of bad faith to claim that vaccines work and that they don't work.
You're not this dumb.
"is vaxed and boosted and TESTED before arguments?"
May be okay, iff there are no contacts between the testing and the arguments and if the time between testing and arguments is not too long.
By the way, I think it's time that those who track the virus, and compile statistics on it, start tracking variants separately. Omicron is clearly not a problem, it produces either no symptoms, or symptoms milder than the common cold, while delta seems still quite serious.
In addition, to restore any credibility they may have had, they should distinguish between 'cases' of hospital admissions, and also deaths, of those from covid v. those with covid.
ThePublius...We will never know with any degree of certainty the 'died from Covid' versus the 'died with Covid' statistics. It is unfortunate that nobody really thought of doing that two years ago. To me, that is a total breakdown in planning and crisis management; I personally would be asking Doctor Birx about that.
Good news, TP! Omicron is 95% of of all Covid cases in the US now.
Also, the variants have been being tracked separately.
And the with vs. of is a canard.
And the with vs. of is a canard.....Yeah, I call bullshit Sarcastr0.
That 'with versus of' goes directly to lethality, which in turn could have had a significant influence on how policymakers chose to respond at the time (circa March/April 2020). We might have avoided much of the deleterious (and growing) effects of lockdowns.
Prepositions matter.
Except there has not been a massive coverup systematic error as those who make the distinction claim. Overdeaths, for instance, track the current CFR numbers quite well.
There just wasn't a massive overestimate pushing policy.
A bit of messiness in the data? Sure, but that's the usual with in situ data.
"I think it's time that those who track the virus, and compile statistics on it, start tracking variants separately"
What makes you think that they don't. The fraction of cases that are genetically identified is well short of 100%, but statistical methods allow one to have a damned good idea of what variant is dominant even without such patient specific data.
So my answer is that your suggestion has been the practice for almost all of 2021
So, yes, what's the concern here if everyone is vaxed and boosted and TESTED before arguments?
Not so much a concern. Just a realization that what real virologist told us almost 2 years ago is true.
1)Virus going to virus.
2) These vaccines are therapeutics. NOT vaccines
Mitigation strategies will delay, not stop the spread of a respiratory virus. The "report" never infers Sotomeyer would be in person if all were wearing a mask.
Facts
Sotomeyer not present
One person on the bench not masking.
After that, wild mind reading.
Don't call them vaccines; call them biologic therapeutics. Nothing wrong with that either; it is not a negative (to me). We treat a lot of diseases with biologic therapies and manage them quite well. To me, all of us who have been vaxxed have participated in the largest biological experiment in human history. Pretty amazing.
A therapeutic is something administered after one gets sick. A vaccine is something administered before one gets sick. These are administered before one gets sick. Therefore, these are vaccines, not therapeutics. QED.
(Actually, there are vaccines for some illnesses that are administered after one gets sick, so vaccines can be therapeutics. But these are not.)
By what measure is a vaccine no longer a vaccine? There has to be a minimum level of performance.
Stopping the spread would seem to be that minimum
The level of vaccination went up as do the cases. Removing 60% of the population from the pool of potential patients and not slowing the rate of infection, seems like a treatment that fails the definition of vaccine.
Rabies vaccine doesn't stop the spread. Is it not a vaccine?
Quit with your outcome oriented nonsense.
the rabies vaccine is one of the few vaccines that work after exposure to the virus.
The covid vaccines dont work that way.
I don't think that's right. I think vaccines and therapeutics are fundamentally different categories: A vaccine is a medical intervention that trains the patient's immune system to respond to a disease agent. In this context, a therapeutic is a medical intervention that mitigates or treats a specific infection. Something can be one, the other, both, or neither.
Treatments can have preventive, and/or curative actions.
Commenter_XY
January.19.2022 at 7:49 am
Flag Comment Mute User
"Don't call them vaccines;"
calling the covid vaccines "vaccines " does violence to the english language.
The covid vaccines do help to reduce the severity of the covid infection which is a good thing, at least for the alpha and delta variant. For all practical purposes, there isnt a vaccine for the omicron variant, at least not much of a vaccine
Vaccines are defined by their mode of action.
This new threshold based definition you're pushing is utter nonsense.
"there isnt a vaccine for the omicron variant, at least not much of a vaccine"
Joe,
There is a vaccine, but is not particularly effective. Omicron is not a new class of virus, it is still part of a the same phylogenetic tree.
"After that, wild mind reading."
Indeed. Sotamayor has diabetes and is overweight, two risk factors. So if Gorsuch put a shmatte* on his face, she would have shown up in person? I doubt it.
_________
*For the uninitiated, that's the slang of a quaint Semitic people for rag.
Gorsuch was right on with his refusal to wear a mask. He understood that:
(i) Sotomayor appears to have a very tenuous understanding of the science behind the pandemic and its mitigation measures;
(ii) The masks probably do not proffer any significant protection against omicron (or most any virus);
(iii) By wearing a mask in a public venue, he would not just be supporting a colleague, but he would be supporting a political agenda that would also cast doubt on the judgement of the court.
(i) that is being charitable at best , she demonstrated a very poor understanding of the covid science.
(ii) The masks will slow down the speed of the airflow somewhat, but all the air still escapes the mask. Its not like its a balloon, so after a period time, 15-20 minutes, the masks has done all it could.
Q: Does mask-wearing (by leader-grade folks in the limelight) signal a political agenda or failing to wear mask?
When only one of the collegium is not doing it while all present peers do, it looks much rather like a dissent; defiance if you will.
Vanity/visage promotion is not a plausible alternative explanation here because the attentive public is already familiar with all each of the supremes, facially speaking. So the additional front-end exposure doesn't add much.
Sounds like she needs to lay off the rice and beans.
good point - but somehow Gorsuch is the bad guy for Sotomayer's 50+ year of unhealthy behavior
It's a racist asshole point, and you have no idea about Sotomayor's behavior.
Sarcastr0
January.19.2022 at 11:01 am
Flag Comment Mute User
It's a racist asshole point, and you have no idea about Sotomayor's behavior."
Stooping pretty low to accuse someone of racism when absolutely nothing racist was said.
she needs to lay off the rice and beans
I did not make that comment
1. I was clearly talking about the point you were calling a good point, i.e. the comment you were replying to.
2. You said good point. Do you think it was a good point?
Jesus Christ, you assholes stop with the 'she's fat' name calling.
Partisanship doesn't need to turn you into a playground bully.
Plenty of people commented about Scalia's weight too.
She's a big girl, you don't have to white knight.
Assholes on the left? MY WORD!
(Though I didn't see much of that till people started wondering if his heart attack was murder).
I have no idea about how she takes care of herself, and neither do you.
The VC is a playground for these sad little pimpled-ass shut-ins to vomit every worst possible impulse and thought they can on the internet. You know this. Even the vilest anti-semitism and racism has a home here.
"Jesus Christ, you assholes stop with the 'she's fat' name calling."
That's actually interesting, as the word is used by both bullies and the anti fat shaming community; different contexts, not always a bad word.
She is obese. I don't know why, and I don't blame her for it. I think some used the word fat here as a stand-in for obese, and some used it in a bullying manner.
'She is obese' is a fine statement to make.
But lots above are going quite a bit further.
(I personally find obese to be more pejorative than fat, but dunno why)
S_O,
Obese does have objective standards that are accepted by the WHO. It is not the same as BMI and healthy levels of BMI differ in different parts of the world with differing ethnic groups.
OBJECTIVE SEMANTICS
That may be true - that "obese" denotes a measurable condition - but what really matters in the general discourse is how the semantics are perceived in the relevant community and what specific words trigger by way of association and emotive response, not to mention pre- and prejudicial judgment about the person being labelled with a particular term.
In analogy to WHO lingo and medico talk, arcane legal lingo has its arguable virtues in sanitizing the colloquies in a litigation setting and in the associated academic discourse forums. I recently chose to use the term "filius nullius" in lieu of bastard, for example. And not just for the love of Latin. And "paramour" is much "nicer" than adulterer or adulteress while still precise, and is also not as susceptible to misunderstanding as would be the verbal form once known as "criminal conversation" denoting conduct where the verbal in the interpersonal course of dealings is optional.
Moving beyond the private and bodily sphere and its radius, think "welfare", a word denoting a desideratum that is found in the mission statement preambling the U.S. constitution, no less.
Not to long ago, we had a case in Texas where the issue was whether "welfare queen" in an investigative story (or hit piece, depending on viewpoint) constitutes libel. See D Magazine Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2017)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7436507982546408154&q=%22welfare+queen%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44
Queen per se is hardly an insult, so it's all about the "welfare" (food stamps, more particularly, for meeting or not of basic survival needs).
Bottom line: Word choice does matter, and that's true no less even if the word choice doesn't amount to defamation or denigration. What's wrong with etiquette and decorum, and good manners?
GRAVITAS VS. GRAVITY
And how are metrics such as midriff circumference and accrued gravitational force of particular incumbents relevant to matters of public policy and generally applicable court-imposed caselaw?
I don’t understand the second update? The reporting I’ve seen says nothing about Sotomayor asking Gorsuch to wear a mask, just that Roberts “somehow” got word out to the rest that it would be nice if they all did.
How about we force Nina Totenburg to “cough up” more details and “unmask” her sources on the court. If the source is a lawyer, their leaks may violate professional ethics. If it is a liberal attorney, they will get a slap on the wrist. If it is a conservative attorney, they will be disbarred and harassed to the end of their days.
Like I said before: I don't know why, after the last 5 years, (Really, longer than that, but it got really bad starting in 2016.) anybody pays any credence to a news report that relies on "anonymous" sources. It's not like such 'sources' have a good track record of being right. And it's remarkably rare for reporters to burn such a source after being misled.
No one is arguing this reporting is not accurate, though.
I'm not sure why you say that. It seems to me that all these updates are saying exactly that: That Totenberg's original, anonymously sourced report in fact wasn't accurate.
No, Adler thought it was ambiguous, not inaccurate.
Well, let's start with the NPR headline: "Gorsuch didn't mask despite Sotomayor's COVID worries, leading her to telework"
Nope and nope. She didn't telework because of Gorsuch not masking, if anything the causality went the other way. But, I understand that writers often don't get to pick their headlines, so this one is on whoever wrote the headline, possibly not Totenberg.
"Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up."
Nope, he says he said nothing of the sort.
"They all did. Except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices' weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone."
Well, seems that whoever wrote the headline DID just get the backwards causality from Totenberg. It IS her fault.
So, yeah, wrong, not ambiguous. Unless you're going to claim that 'in some form' encompasses "not at all".
The "reporting" has been cleared up by a joint statement from Sotomayor and Gorsuch.
They state their is no conflict between the two them concerning masking and that they are friends and respect each other.
Totenberg made it up. She lied.
Unless
She burns her source.
Which will it be?
"Totenberg is a careful reporter"
Point of order. A careful reporter would have confirmed the story with the subjects involved before publishing.
Is it desirable for justices on the highest policymaking court to be "friends" beyond being peers in and of the law and respectful colleagues?
It may be unavoidable, what with long co-tenures and regular interaction, but is it desirable? Might it not undermine the vigor of the intellectual engagement and exchange? Granted, it may be less of a problem with mixed partisan make-up (based on appointing president, rather than partisan appointment followed by elections such as in Texas), but still.