idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

By default.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

So Spudly; Do you agree with his decision on the frozen trucker case?

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

I have absolutely no knowledge of any details about a frozen trucker! You might want to run that one by DSD! She knows truckers. I do know quite a bit about a victim by the name of Mary Jo Kopechne however.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

OMG. Can you really only focus on ONE case out of hundreds? Do you even know anything about this case and the actual law involved? Get a life and stop parroting the negative party rhetoric.

FlyingTiger Loc: Tortola, BVI

Imbecile. Yep, losing it frankie boy. You get more stupid by the day.

Let's see frankie the moron, let's look at one of the very smart things you have said in the past.

A recent quote from frankie the moron:

I for one am looking forward to the Republican Convention. It should be high on the entertainment scale and interesting to boot.
What do you do when the crazy guy you gave a dollar to on a cold winter night follows you home? The GOP needs to figure that out. Donald has proven to be a total jerk and the GOP has only a couple of choices. 1) Get behind him and lose all credibility. 2) Sacrifice the P**********l e******n and put their efforts into maintaining a majority in the senate and house, but keep their credibility and hope for a better 2020. 3) Change the convention rules as they are allowed to do by their charter and run a different candidate, which will probably still lead to them losing the e******n when Donald runs as an independent.
Stock up on popcorn, wings and beer. This should be a great show.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Very difficult not to admire Gorsuch no matter which side of the isle you are on.
He was unanimously confirmed to the lower court.
Democrats lost in multiple ways with the attempted filibuster.
I hope to see more constitutionalist judges approved in the next few years.

"Justice is the handmaiden of law."
Judge Roy Bean

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

EyeSawYou

It wasn't by default you silly old man, do you even know what "default" means in this context?

EyeSawYou

Yes I do agree with his decision to side with the law, but it's sad the law was written in a way that he lost the decision...the trucker that is.

"Why the “Frozen Trucker” Case Makes Me Like Judge Gorsuch More
Gorsuch's ruling in the controversial case shows that he rules based on the law, not his own feelings."

Judge Gorsuch's dissent:

"It might be fair to ask whether T***sAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one. The Department of Labor says that T***sAm violated federal law, in particular 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B). But that statute only forbids employers from firing employees who “refuse[] to operate a vehicle” out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, T***sAm expressly — and by everyone’s admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was and wait for help. The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not. And there’s simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid. Maybe the Department would like such a law, maybe someday Congress will adorn our federal statute books with such a law. But it isn’t there yet. And it isn’t our job to write one — or to allow the Department to write one in Congress’s place."

In short, the majority bent over backwards to bring about what it thought was a just result, despite the limited legal tools at its disposal. Frankly, I am not shedding too many tears over T***sAm Trucking having to dole out some back-pay to a guy they fired for trying to stay alive. Plus, the statute as effectively rewritten by the court still seemed rather reasonable. But, was it their job to rewrite the statute? That do the right thing attitude is the same mindset that can lead a judge to bend any text, even the Constitution, to get to a “just” outcome. These days, “justice” is making all sorts of demands on the Constitution that might have seemed rather odd to those who drafted and ratified it.

Judge Gorsuch is not a man without sympathy. As he noted in his dissent, “It might be fair to ask whether T***sAm’s decision was a wise or kind one.” Let me t***slate: that is mild-mannered judge-speak for “you guys are jerks.” “But,” he continued, “it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one.”

In the end, he concluded that the company had the better interpretation, and he would not bend a statute about refusing to operate a truck into one about operating a truck, even if in a safer way. Gorsuch based his decision on what Congress actually wrote and on what was actually argued before his court and in the lower tribunals — not on what could have been said but was not. “It is our job and work enough for the day,” Gorsuch concluded, “to apply the law Congress did pass, not to imagine and enforce one it might have but didn’t.”

Gorsuch is Committed to Facts, Not Feelings
The Tenth Circuit’s stretch of an obscure labor law will not make the judicial activism hall of fame. Nevertheless, I am glad to see Gorsuch refusing to play this game, if even at the minor league level. His restraint gives me hope that he will not do so when he puts on his big league uniform as one of the nine.

Bad facts and good intentions can make bad law.
Cases like that of Mr. Maddin may suggest that more things should be left to the flexibility of the common law, where judges rightly have greater freedom to adjust for extreme circumstances. (The trucker might yet have a legitimate common law tort claim or other causes of action against the company.) These factually hard cases, however, do not suggest that a clear statutory text should be ignored to get to a favored result. Bad facts and good intentions can make bad law.

I hope that Neil Gorsuch the person would stop and render aid on the highway. I hope that Neil Gorsuch the lawyer would represent a client like Mr. Maddin well. I hope that Neil Gorsuch the citizen would call Congress and suggest it amend the labor law to cover such situations. As a judge, though, I would prefer to have on the Supreme Court one who is willing to endure a frustrating but legally correct result over someone who takes it upon himself to right every wrong according his own moral compass. Neil Gorsuch appears to be just such a disciplined justice.

https://stream.org/frozen-trucker-case-makes-like-judge-gorsuch/

davefales Loc: Virginia

The instant gratification crowd does not want to do the heavy lifting to have the law ruled unconstitutional, or better yet to get their legislators to revise/improve the law.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

I don't believe Gorsuch ruled on that case. Please site your source.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

Garland was DOA. You just don't get it do you? The Repubs saved making a fool out of Garland with his libtard views.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

Maybe the driver was a fool for taking out a truck without a heater in that weather. Probably had the mentality of a DemoCrap.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California