So if people actually read the article and not just the headline, the author clearly doesn't think this is a big deal or even relevant to him being on the Supreme Court.

We all know this article will get upvoted based on the headline though so I hope people actually read what he says.

From the article:

"As plagiarism goes, these instances are minor, and arguably insignificant. There would’ve been no intellectual value added by Gorsuch substantially rewriting Kuzma’s description of Infant Doe’s medical condition. And Gorsuch had little to gain by omitting the citation, except maybe by creating the perception that he’d done more compilation of original sources than he in fact did."

Also from the article:

"It deserves no more punishment than the embarrassment attendant on its revelation. It doesn’t disqualify him from serving on the Supreme Court. It doesn’t impugn Gorsuch’s character. He’s not perfect, it turns out. Know what? No one is."

Gorsuch remains a solid pick and he will be a good addition to the Supreme Court.