Thoughts on Tiffany Cunningham’s Confirmation to the CAFC

By Eileen McDermott
July 24, 2021

“As the first woman dean of a law school that focuses on intellectual property, I can say that representation matters. This is true especially for women and people of color, who comprise such a small part of the IP bar…. Tiffany Cunningham’s credentials are phenomenal and will serve her well as we all navigate complex issues at the intersection of intellectual property and innovation.” – Megan Carpenter

Tiffany CunninghamTiffany Cunningham was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier this week, making her—incredibly—the intellectual property court’s first Black judge. Cunningham has been a patent litigation partner at Perkins Coie LLP in Chicago, Illinois since 2014, and prior to that worked in the Chicago office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. She will replace Judge Evan J. Wallach, who announced in March that he would retire from active service and assume senior status as of May 31, 2021, after 10 years of service with the court.

Despite sometimes vocal criticism on the political right of President Biden’s promise to diversify the U.S. federal judiciary, Cunningham is widely considered to be a qualified choice. Every Democratic senator voted to confirm her, as well as Republicans including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC).

In written responses to Tillis submitted in June, Cunningham acknowledged that, in her experience, motions to invalidate patents were filed less frequently pre-Mayo/Alice, and that there has been a “significant uptick in the number and the success” of such motions since those decisions. She also told Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) during her confirmation hearings that the area of patent eligibility law “deserves attention,” and made reference to the pending Supreme Court petition in American Axle v. Neapco.

Below are some thoughts from members of the IP community, and senators who voted for her, on what Cunningham’s appointment might mean for the CAFC long term.

[[Advertisement]]

Megan Carpenter

Megan Carpenter, University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law

Tiffany Cunningham’s appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a milestone for the court and for all those advocating for the diversification of the IP bar and its representatives. Judge Cunningham’s background will serve her well in this role; her experience on the technical side of IP in chemical engineering, combined with her decades of experience in complex patent litigation, make her an excellent choice. In particular, her experience working across disciplines, from pharmaceutical and biotech to computer science, automotive, and mechanical engineering gives her both a breadth and depth of experience that will benefit those who argue before her and those who are impacted by her decision-making.

As the first woman dean of a law school that focuses on intellectual property, I can say that representation matters. This is true especially for women and people of color, who comprise such a small part of the IP bar. Data from the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) from 2017 note that only 1.8% of all IP attorneys are African American. Only 20% of all patent attorneys are women, and only 12.6% of all patent appeal cases argued before the Federal Circuit over the last decade were argued by women. Tiffany Cunningham’s credentials are phenomenal and will serve her well as we all navigate complex issues at the intersection of intellectual property and innovation. And as the first Black judge to be appointed since the Federal Circuit was created in 1982, her appointment will be inspirational to aspiring law students.

Statement of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)

This is a truly historic confirmation—Ms. Cunningham will serve as the first Black judge on the Federal Circuit. She will not only bring much-needed diversity to the bench, but she will bring impeccable credentials as well. I’m pleased my colleagues joined me in a bipartisan manner in support of Ms. Cunningham’s nomination.

Sangeeta G. Shah, Brooks Kushman

I’m elated to have a 20-year veteran patent litigator on the Federal Circuit bench, someone who intimately understands the unpredictability of the current patent landscape, in particular on the issue of patent eligibility, and can help bridge the current divide. Her chemical engineering background and experience with Hatch Waxman cases will undoubtedly be of great value to the bench and their patent docket. And, last but certainly not least, I’m thrilled that an African American woman with such impeccable qualifications will sit on the Federal Circuit, breaking yet another glass ceiling. I am hopeful that her confirmation will serve as a catalyst for change.”

Bridget Smith, Lowenstein & Weatherwax

I’m thrilled that Ms. Cunningham sailed through her Senate confirmation. Her credentialed expertise and deep knowledge of the law certainly set a lofty bar for future nominees. That she is also a Black woman is an exciting milestone, and I hope that the improvements to diversity on the appellate bench send a clarion call to law firms to improve the diversity of practitioners appearing before them. It is particularly encouraging that Ms. Cunningham has substantial, practical experience on both sides of the “v,” having represented everyone from large corporations to individuals, and knows the importance of applying the law evenhandedly. That said, it appears that Ms. Cunningham may have concerns about the proliferation of patent cases in the Western District of Texas and we may see increased activity from the Federal Circuit to derail Judge Albright’s efforts to grow his court’s reputation as a “patent-friendly” venue.

Thom TillisStatement of Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC)

I was proud to vote to confirm Tiffany Cunningham to the Federal Circuit. Ms. Cunningham will bring a wealth of experience to the bench, and I hope that as a Federal Judge she will take steps to bring clarity to our nation’s patent eligibility jurisprudence so that we can continue to be the world’s leading innovation economy.

 

The Author

Eileen McDermott

Eileen McDermott is the Editor-in-Chief of IPWatchdog.com. Eileen is a veteran IP and legal journalist, and no stranger to the intellectual property world, having held editorial and managerial positions at several publications and industry organizations. She has acted as editorial consultant for the International Trademark Association (INTA), chiefly overseeing the editorial process for the Association’s twice-monthly newsletter, the INTA Bulletin. Eileen has also served as a freelance editor for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); as senior consulting editor for the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) from 2015 to 2017; as Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief at INTA from 2013 to 2016; and was Americas Editor for Managing Intellectual Property magazine from 2007 to 2013.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 50 Comments comments.

  1. Moderate Centrist Independent July 24, 2021 4:39 pm

    Unlike so many Trump appointees rubber-stamped by GOP Senators, Judge Cunningham is indisputably well qualified for the position.

  2. Night Writer July 25, 2021 2:52 pm

    People should be thrilled when the best qualified person is selected and not when they feel a person having the sex, sexual orientation, and skin color is selected. I guess as a white male I pretty tired of this game that when anyone but a white male is selected it is a good thing and any white male has to be overly qualified. I think every white male over 50 has been subjected to discriminatory promotion and hiring practices.

    Plus we still never really got a good feel for her personal feelings on patents. J. Chen also had great credentials but anyone that every spoke to him knew that he personally was very negative and against patenting information processing patents. We have been a bit lucky with J. Chen as his views seem to have moderated.

    Also, the key factors as 1) their technical expertise; 2) their patent knowledge; 3) whether they are judicial activists; and, 4) their views on patents.

    J. Taranto is a judicial activist who thinks patents need to be controlled. He has very little regard for the rights of inventors.

    So—the big questions with Cunningham are whether she is a judicial activist and whether believes that the patent right is something that should be protected.

    Another big issue is whether she will proactively try to sort out the mess that is 101 at the CAFC. This is rather easy–frankly. Will see side with Newman?

    Etc.

    Just reality. But enjoy your delusions.

  3. Paul F Morgan July 26, 2021 11:02 am

    “..sort out the mess that is 101 at the CAFC. This is rather easy–frankly.” [Definitely not, since the CAFC cannot overrule or ignore the relevant Sup. Ct. decisions.]
    Her hearing-expressed knowledge of what is going on in WDTX Waco was an interesting demonstration of her patent litigation expertise.

  4. Night Writer July 26, 2021 11:31 am

    @Moderate Centrist Independent >Unlike so many Trump appointees rubber-stamped by GOP Senators, Judge Cunningham is indisputably well qualified for the position.

    Trump didn’t have any appointments to the CAFC. And Obama’s were notoriously either unqualified or anti-patent judicial activists. Obama appointed O’Malley through Stoll.

    My main concern is that she doesn’t appear to be any J. Rich and that is what is needed to stop the judicial activism in 112 and to clean house in 101.

  5. Night Writer July 26, 2021 12:54 pm

    @3 Paul “..sort out the mess that is 101 at the CAFC. This is rather easy–frankly.” [Definitely not, since the CAFC cannot overrule or ignore the relevant Sup. Ct. decisions.]

    No kidding. But Alice/Mayo are so wide-open that the CAFC could easily closet Alice. Something as simple as a test for “well-known” or many other ways using the words of Alice.

    I don’t think the Scotus meant for Alice to be so draconian and what the Scotus did was set out a rule where the CAFC could do pretty much what they wanted.

    Anyway…

  6. Curious July 26, 2021 3:29 pm

    “..sort out the mess that is 101 at the CAFC. This is rather easy–frankly.” [Definitely not, since the CAFC cannot overrule or ignore the relevant Sup. Ct. decisions.]
    I disagree. The Supreme Court in Alice cozied up really close to their decision in Bilski, and Bilski was nowhere near as bad as Alice turned out to be. It doesn’t take much to distinguish an invention from Bilski/Alice/Mayo. It is the Federal Circuit decisions, however, that are a complete and total irreconcilable mess. There is little that cannot fall under the 101 axe based upon these CAFC decisions.

    However, this can be fixed with a Chief Judge willing to attempt it (with an en banc panel decision). An en banc decision could wipe out (or at least severely curtail) ALL of the post-Alice Federal Circuit precedent.

    Judge Cunningham could be the swing voter in an en banc decision. Just look at the denial of the petition for en banc in American Axle:

    On one side there was: Dyk, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Prost, and Hughes
    On the other side there was: Newman, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Stoll, and Lourie.

    Prost didn’t join any opinion, but she is about as anti-patent as it gets. Hughes also didn’t join any opinion, but he must have voted against granting the petition. Cunningham replaced Wallach, which means the 6-6 tie is now 5-6 with Cunningham (currently) a free agent. That being said, I’m a little concerned about Lourie.

    If Cunningham is going to be anti-patent and sides with Prost, Dyk, et al., then things won’t be changing much. However, there is a chance she’ll be less like Dyk (for whom she clerked) and more like one of the other, more pro-patent judges.

    There are two things that lead me to be hopeful. First, Chris Coons has as much sway with the Biden administration as any Senator, and this falls under his specialty. Second, Cunningham isn’t like many (albeit not all) of the anti-patent wing of the Federal Circuit who had zero patent experience before showing up at the Federal Circuit. She’s represented patent owners in the past so she isn’t inherently anti-patent.

    Finally, I know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows Judge Cunningham and is hopeful.

  7. Anon-noyed July 26, 2021 5:36 pm

    @Night Writer

    “Trump didn’t have any appointments to the CAFC. And Obama’s were notoriously either unqualified or anti-patent judicial activists. Obama appointed O’Malley through Stoll.”

    MCI’s comment wasn’t specifically directed to the CAFC. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, and stop with the histrionics.

    You rave on about Richard Taranto but he clerked for Judge Robert Bork and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the United States Supreme Court. Taranto was also an Assistant Solicitor during the Reagan Administration. If Taranto is judicial activist, he’s a conservative judicial activist.

  8. ipguy July 26, 2021 6:05 pm

    We need someone with the type of background and experience that Pauline Newman brought to the table. She had worked as a research scientist, as a patent attorney, and as director of a corporate IP Dept. However, at least Judge Cunningham is an experienced patent litigator.

  9. Night Writer July 27, 2021 4:59 am

    @7 Anon-noyed “You rave on about Richard Taranto but he clerked for Judge Robert Bork and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the United States Supreme Court. Taranto was also an Assistant Solicitor during the Reagan Administration. If Taranto is judicial activist, he’s a conservative judicial activist.”

    Relevance to what Taranto is now? Work on your logic skills. And, you have no idea what you are talking about. The DOJ was the core of the anti-patent judicial activists. The DOJ were the ones that started the 101 nonsense with Benson. The head of the DOJ IP basically wrote the Scotus opinion for Benson. That is the Scotus basically adopted the brief that the DOJ prepared.

    Taranto to anyone that follows the CAFC and patent law is clearly an anti-patent judicial activist. We have seen this in his 112 decisions as well as many others.

  10. B July 27, 2021 4:38 pm

    @ Night Writer “Taranto to anyone that follows the CAFC and patent law is clearly an anti-patent judicial activist. We have seen this in his 112 decisions as well as many others.”

    Obama’s search to find the most incompetent, anti-patent judges for the CAFC naturally led him to discover Taranto. This is a situation where utility trumped politics, and we should all celebrate that Obama reached across the aisle for the cause of enriching big business by destroying the patent system.

  11. Anon-noyed July 27, 2021 9:43 pm

    @9
    Night Writer, you never have a clue and don’t here.
    Now be quiet and go about your ordinary life.

    @10
    Actually, it was Mitch McConnell’s obstruction of Obama nominees that you can thank for Obama discovering Taranto and reaching across the aisle to nominate Taranto after Republicans refused to advance the nomination of Edward C. DuMont.

  12. B July 28, 2021 12:04 am

    @ Annoyed

    McConnell is worthless, but don’t blame him for the horrible judicial picks Obama made. All of Obama’s CAFC picks are terrible, all were made by Obama.

    Also, don’t assume Dumont didn’t have issues. The Dems could get his nomination out of a committee they controlled. McConnell couldn’t have stopped it on a bet.

  13. Night Writer July 28, 2021 6:34 am

    @10, 12 B

    I am sure that Silicon Valley directed the selection of the CAFC judges for Obama. I think that O’Malley was done before the SV started controlling Obama and she was a pick to include someone that had DC experience. But she is not qualified as she had no patent or science background. Stoll was a replacement for Radar so Obama was trying to throw the patent “folks” a bone but Stoll is worthless. She was mentally unstable at Finnegan.

    Basically, if we had like 10 Newmans patent law could be straightened out.

    What people don’t get is that –the big lie–is that patent law and innovation are messed up but that isn’t what the problem is. The problem is that the CAFC/Scotus have messed up patent law so bad that it is not functioning properly. And Obama’s six judges are not going to make things better. Cunningham seems to be another Stoll like creature that isn’t going to get anything done and will be controlled by people like Taranto. Maybe Cunningham will side with Newman (basically Rich’s way of sorting out patent law). Still what patent law needed was another Rich who could cut through all this nonsense and the judicial activists attempts to so cloud patent law that patent law has become almost worthless and nothing more than going before a judge and they just do whatever they want.

    @11Anon-noyed
    No substantive come back. What a surprise. /sarcasm off.

  14. Moderate Centrist Independent July 28, 2021 2:30 pm

    The whole eliminate the filibuster came up because McConnell declared he’d make Obama a one term president. Nothing wrong with Dumont other than McConnell obstructed everything. Obama’s staff probably figured that they could get Taranto through because of his conservative pedigree.

  15. Moderate Centrist Independent??? Really??? July 29, 2021 12:21 am

    Moderate Centrist Independent @ 14

    McConnell could not possibly have kept the Senate from voting on DuMont at the time. NOT POSSIBLE!

  16. Anon-noyed July 29, 2021 3:59 pm

    @16

    Judge Taranto’s first name is Richard. His middle name is Gary. You messed up on your copy-and-paste. Perhaps you should pause before you accuse others of not being very bright. As for who got more Republican votes, the issue is irrelevant. There were no votes in opposition to either of them, doofus.

  17. Moderate Centrist Independent July 29, 2021 4:14 pm

    @15

    “NOT POSSIBLE”

    shhh! The adults are talking. Come back when you’ve grown-up and know about something called the filibuster.

  18. Moderate Centrist Independent July 29, 2021 4:20 pm

    @16

    Who is Gary Taranto, dullard/B/Night Writer/Anon? Did you mean Judge Richard G. Taranto?

  19. B July 29, 2021 4:27 pm

    @ Annoyed “Judge Taranto’s first name is Richard. His middle name is Gary. You messed . . .”

    BFD. BTW, I’ve appeared before Taranto, and I believe I recall Judge Reyna referring to him as “Gary” in an aside.

    “As for who got more Republican votes, the issue is irrelevant.”

    Actually it does when someone is making the idiotic assertion MCI did.

    “There were no votes in opposition to either of them, doofus.”

    VIOLA, you just made my point. There was ZERO opposition to the liberal and gay judge MUCH to the contrary of the idiotic lies of the leftists on this page re DuMont as well as to why Taranto was nominated.

    Try paying attention next time.

    Game, set, match — I’d thank you, but the reality is that you made my point for me totally by accident. (*evil laugh*)

  20. Anon July 29, 2021 7:19 pm

    A giveaway that this is the banished one:

    dullard/B/Night Writer/Anon?

    The banished one (repeatedly) made the mistake that everyone disagreeing with him ‘had to be’ the same person; and here, adds Night Writer, who has not been involved in this exchange but was involved in prior ones with the banished one.

    Attempting to evade the banishment is itself a banishable offense.

    What are the chances that MCI is using a fake email address? – also a banishable offense…

  21. B July 29, 2021 7:31 pm

    @ Anon “A giveaway that this is the banished one:”

    Everyone knew it on post #1, and by post #3 he was all full-on insult name-calling . . . again. His personality defects won’t allow him to engage in anything approaching deliberation.

  22. Anon-noyed July 29, 2021 8:52 pm

    And post 22 and post 23 are examples of why it’s more than just “the banished one” who believe that Anon and B are the same person.

    “full-on insult name-calling”

    And that would be the pot calling the kettle black. See post 16 above (“you’ll know why people think you’re not very bright.”).

    “I’ve appeared before Taranto”

    BFD, followed by “as if”, and even if you did, it would explain your animosity towards Judge Taranto like the sore loser you are.

    “I believe I recall Judge Reyna referring to him as “Gary” in an aside.”

    How convenient. More BFS on your part.

  23. B July 29, 2021 9:48 pm

    @ Annoyed “And that would be the pot calling the kettle black.”

    You project

    “it would explain your animosity towards Judge Taranto like the sore loser you are.”

    I’ve lambasted far more than Judge Taranto, but the reality is I have little respect for judges as bad as Taranto, and I have NO problem publicly mocking every judge who uses terms, e.g., “inventive concept,” they don’t understand.
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1199/96395/20190415015752247_Investpic_Amicus_filing.pdf

    As to “sore loser” – there’s truth in that although I don’t mind losing in a fair fight. However, there’s nothing fair or honest about the CAFC’s Alice-Mayo doctrine.

    At this point in time I’m making my best efforts to see if I can shame the CAFC into admitting that no one there knows what an “inventive concept” is. 10+ years and not a single judge or justice (or any of the sub-par intellects passing as clerks) has had the brain power to tell the world what is an “inventive concept” using a non-circular definition.

    What’s an abstract idea? Something that doesn’t have an inventive concept?

    What’s an inventive concept? It’s something you need to make an abstract idea not abstract.

    Dullards – every single one.

    “More BFS on your part.”

    Whatever.

  24. Anon July 30, 2021 9:58 am

    How in the world is: “And post 22 and post 23 are examples of why it’s more than just “the banished one” who believe that Anon and B are the same person.“…?

    B is a KNOWN entity (and uses “B” as a shortcut).

    He has a style entirely different than my own and we have disagreed on occasion.

    The mere fact that are views are in alignment simply does NOT support a contention that we are the same person.

    By the way, I do love the attention and focus that you have for me. My own writing must have burrowed deep into your psyche for the level of attention that you devote to me, down even to your choice of pseudonym.

  25. B July 30, 2021 11:09 am

    @ Anon “By the way, I do love the attention and focus that you have for me.”

    To repeat a cliché: Almost by definition you live in this guy’s head (can I say “guy?” I don’t know his pronouns) rent free.

    BTW: how much you want to bet your fan-boy regularly uses multiple monikers?

  26. Moderate Centrist Independent July 30, 2021 12:43 pm

    My, my. Anon/B is mighty defensive and touchy when called out about being the same person. Very defensive indeed.

    Viola! You just made my point! You’ve tripped over your own rightist lies. You’ve probably created numerous other names to debate yourself with, with some agreeing with you and others created to disagree with. Every post you’ve made has only piled more evidence against yourself.

    Game set and match!

  27. Anon July 30, 2021 12:49 pm

    LOL – not defensive at all. Merely pointing out an error (that has been pointed out previously) and noting that intentionally repeating this error is – well – just not very smart.

    The rather bizarre attempt to flip words against the person who first used the words reminds me of the person over at that other blog who displayed a greater than 99.9% obsession with me over the course of over a year (and only changed when the repeated notions of cyber-stalking impressed upon the editor of that blog to take some action.

  28. B July 30, 2021 1:49 pm

    @ Anon “The rather bizarre attempt . . . reminds me of the person over at that other blog . . . and only changed when the repeated notions of cyber-stalking impressed upon the editor of that blog to take some action.”

    Your fan-boy is a cyber-stalker? Ewwwww! Creepy!

  29. Moderate Centrist Independent July 30, 2021 4:05 pm

    “– not defensive at all.”

    He said very defensively, and then predictably chimed in using his other personal to support his defensiveness.

  30. Anon July 30, 2021 7:36 pm

    Not defensive, and yet again, I am not B.

    Mr. Quinn can easily vouch for this, as I (and most likely B – who has contributed articles to this blog) use real email addresses.

    Do you?

    You are verging on being banned under yet another persona.

  31. Moderate Centrist Independent July 31, 2021 9:57 pm

    “Not defensive”

    That’s a classic example of defensiveness.

    Now stop your harassment of me or you’ll give the mods a reason to banish you.

  32. Anon August 1, 2021 9:28 am

    That’s a classic example of…

    THAT is a classic example of modern Liberal Left mindlessness.

    ANY statement – even (or in this case, especially) factual ones – is mindlessly treated as confirming the asserted position.

    Seeking to provide veracity of comments is not — and cannot be — taken as harassment.
    Let’s see if you can be honest here (and Mr. Quinn, you may want to pay attention to any direct lies):

    Are you using a fake email address to post your comments?

  33. Moderate Centrist Independent August 1, 2021 4:48 pm

    “THAT is a classic example of modern Liberal Left mindlessness”

    THAT is a classic example of your default harassment. You’re very intolerant. If you keep harassing people you’ll get banished from this board unless you’re of the belief that Gene and Eileen look the other way. In which case, shame on them for enabling your harassment of others.

  34. Anon August 1, 2021 7:44 pm

    As I pointed out, there is nothing intolerant about my establishing the veracity of various positions.

    You confuse the fact that you do not like that I am correct in that veracity check with some sense of you being “harassed.”

    Too bad for you that objective reality is a total defense to any such claims of “harassment.”

  35. Anon-noyed August 2, 2021 2:31 pm

    And Anon keeps digging himself deeper into the hole!
    Now that is classic Anon The Bully! Now just wait until his B or Night Writer persona shows up to defend the Anon persona.

  36. Anon August 2, 2021 5:51 pm

    How odd of you to do what you appear to be accusing me of.

    Wait, that’s not odd at all.

    Why in the world would you think that achieving (and defending) veracity is any type of “digging deeper into a hole” or bullying?

    These accusations are groundless.

    Just like – exactly like – the accusation of harassment.

    I do wonder now – does Anon-noyed use a fake email address (as well)?

    That would not be the first ‘fingerprint’ of obsession with my posts.

  37. Moderate Centrist Independent August 2, 2021 7:35 pm

    Your own posts condemn you for your harassment. And it’s not odd you’re going straight from the Trump playbook of deny, lie , obfuscate and call in your alter egos to give the appearance that others agree with you. Then, you’ll run the thread for as many rounds of back and forth as the mods will allow before they shut down the thread. That’s how you operate. Speaking of obsession, yours is getting in the last word so it appears you’ve won, but it only shows that you’ve lost again.
    Quit harassing people or you’ll be banned.

  38. Anon August 2, 2021 10:54 pm

    Another baseless accusation.

    And again, Mr. Quinn can easily vouch that I am not using any alter egos.

    How about you? Let’s start with a simple question: are you using a fake email address with your posts?

    Your continued same false script points – coupled with “OMB-TDS” flavor that is also groundless — as no doubt you have been paying attention to my posts on Trump.

    But you only know your script and you really do not know how to handle a Centrist that exposes the weaknesses of your posts.

    Here’s a hint: your feelings of being harassed when faced with objective truth mean that YOU are not dealing out a rational view.

  39. Anon-noyed August 3, 2021 3:56 pm

    Your posts are res ipsa loquitor and the evidence against you is overwhelmingly damning.
    You may actually be so self-deluded as to believe yourself to be a centrist but your subjective view is a warped distortion of reality that falls apart under any measure of objectivity.
    As the man said, stop harassing people or you’ll be banned!

  40. B August 3, 2021 4:02 pm

    @ Annoying “ As the man said, stop harassing people or you’ll be banned”

    No one is harassing you, Karen.

    Anon, stop feeding the troll. He’ll just sprout more monikers and endlessly whine while pretending he’s more than a single, creepy cyber-stalker.

  41. Anon August 3, 2021 6:57 pm

    I hear you B, but curiously, I “enjoy the dance.

    Anon-noyed – you misused the term ‘res ipsa loquitor.’

    You are assuming conclusions that would need be proven.

    As I have also provided, the Centrist label was NOT self-generated, but has been generated over at least the last four presidential elections by a third party site that evaluates a massive weighted survey and provides a detailed analysis across a large number of issues.

    As I have noted (without your reply), those of the Liberal Left tend to think of ANYONE not hewing to the most extreme Left positions as being “Right Wing.” Funny how you do not share whether or not you think Joe Rogan is Right Wing. Is that a measure of ‘objectivity?’

    Your mantra of merely using someone else’s words is yet another fingerprint (falls apart under measure of objectivity…? really?)

  42. Anon-noyed August 3, 2021 8:56 pm

    @42 “No one is harassing you, Karen.”

    I didn’t say I was being harassed. What I said was: “As the man said, stop harassing people or you’ll be banned.”

    Your reading comprehension skills are abominable. Bye, Felicia!

    @43 ” you misused the term ‘res ipsa loquitor.’”

    However, you want to spin it, your posts are res ipsa loquitor and the evidence against you is overwhelmingly damning.

    You’re not a ‘Centrist’ no matter how much you wish to be your own lexicographer.

    Stop harassing people or you’ll be banned!

  43. Moderate Centrist Independent August 3, 2021 9:51 pm

    “I hear you B, but curiously, I “enjoy the dance.””

    A clear and plain admission by Anon that he enjoys harassing others, and he won’t stop.

    I ask the moderator to send Anon a warning and ban him if he continues this unrepentant behavior.

  44. Anon August 4, 2021 6:43 am

    MCI,

    You misunderstand – the dance is the exchange.

    You still err in what is “harassment.”

    Are you now considering the mere fact of exchange to be harassment? Are you still considering the providing of veracity of posts to be harassment? Is “harassment” to you anything that disagrees with your feelings?

  45. Anon August 4, 2021 7:59 pm

    And yet again, you are wrong.

    I noticed that you did NOT answer any of the questions as to what (exactly) it is that you consider harassment. As I have pointed out, MANY things that YOU may consider harassment simply are NOT harassment.

    You simply have no case here.

  46. Anon August 5, 2021 9:22 pm

    And yet another mirror post.

    Do you get a volume discount?

  47. Anon August 6, 2021 3:41 pm

    If you cannot (or won’t) define “harassment” how in the world are you expecting to be taken seriously?

    I have already provided that what you appear to be calling “harassment” is NOT in fact harassment.

    You still have no case.

    As to “Trump-like pride,” NOTHING in my posts would indicate such characterization, and this is nothing more than YOUR errant accusations creeping in (yet again).

  48. Anon August 6, 2021 7:01 pm

    And yet again – your repeating something wrong won’t change the fact that what you are repeating is wrong.

    You need a different tactic.

  49. Anon August 6, 2021 10:44 pm

    Now you are lying.

    Didn’t you learn your lesson about this behavior before?

  50. Zete4vr August 7, 2021 3:21 pm

    Ms. Eileen McDermott,
    What is IPWatchdog’s anti-harassment policy and where is it posted on your website?
    Your swift answer would be greatly appreciated by anyone who clicked “Notify me of followup comments via e-mail” and has been subjected to Anon’s lack of self-restraint and good judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Zete4vr