Gorsuch and the truck driver...and the lies of the democrats...

[Valerie]

gorsuch understands that sometimes laws intentionally use broad language so as not exclude things in their purview.

yet the man hides behind the broad language of the law to claim the law excludes things which it does not.

on top of that, in this particular case, gorsuch goes out of his way to extrapolate the meaning of "vehicle" yet he stubbornly refuses to extrapolate the broader understanding of what it means for an employee to be an "operator" of a vehicle with sincere "safety concerns".

the law does not even address the fault in those safety issues, so your riveting tale about brake fluid is meaningless.


the intention of the law is to protect employees from being abused by their employers and gorsuch chose to protect the corporation instead.

Under the rules of the US Department of Labor, a truck driver can't be fired for refusing to "operate" his vehicle because of "safety concerns."

 

[blackhawk]

As much as some people won't want to hear this sometimes the little guy is wrong. It's the job of judges to decide if something is legal not if it's nice or fair.

 

[Missourian]

if you cared to understand my point, you'd have addressed it rather than go on about brake fluid.

you're projecting all sorts of factors beside the point.

notice how you see no mention of brake fluid in the law suit?

Trucks use air brakes...no fluid...which you would know if you had a single clue on the topic on which you are opining. That is air brake line anti-freeze...it will unstick frozen brakes in less than 10 minutes...which is exactly the point.

When we have a discussion about fung shui or the Kardashians, I will bow to your comparative expertise.

 

[2aguy]

and gorsuch in effect let the corporation get way with squashing the little guy...

No.....he wrote the dissent and actually followed the law......which is what a judge is supposed to do...

 

[2aguy]

Under the rules of the US Department of Labor, a truck driver can't be fired for refusing to "operate" his vehicle because of "safety concerns."


But in his dissent, Gorsuch didn't buy the argument that a refusal to "operate" the vehicle was even involved. In fact, he "operated" his truck, driving it to a gas station against company orders that he should have remained with the trailer.


Gorsuch wrote, "A trucker was stranded on the side of the road, late at night, in cold weather, and his trailer brakes were stuck. He called his company for help and someone there gave him two options. He could drag the trailer carrying the company's goods to its destination (an illegal and maybe sarcastically offered option). Or he could sit and wait for help to arrive (a legal if unpleasant option). The trucker chose None of the Above, deciding instead to unhook the trailer and drive his truck to a gas station. In response, his employer, TransAm, fired him for disobeying orders and abandoning its trailer and goods.

"It might be fair to ask whether TransAm'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."



yeah, this a real good example of the limitations of gorsuch. i do not approve of his thought process there.

not one word about "safety concerns" as he dismisses freezing limbs as "legal if unpleasant" while he makes no attempt to define the job of "operating the vehicle" amidst safety concerns which the law is written for in the first place...

What part of his being a judge do you not understand.....he doesn't get to factor in anything besides the law.....that is exactly why lefties like you shouldn't be allowed to run the justice system...

 

[Valerie]

what part of all the other judges disagreed with his narrow judgement, do you not understand?

 

[Valerie]

you better watch out. your right to be on the internet is not written in the constitution so mr strict constructionist narrow gorsuch might allow your state to take away your internet access...

leave it up to the states.

 

[my2¢]

I'm happy the majority opinion held that being ordered to sit in an unheated truck cab in sub-freezing temperature is the same as being ordered to operate a truck in an unsafe condition. I hope Gorsuch is confirmed but on this one I thought his judgement was somewhat anal.

 

[westwall]

if you cared to understand my point, you'd have addressed it rather than go on about brake fluid.

you're projecting all sorts of factors beside the point.

notice how you see no mention of brake fluid in the law suit?

Actually it is you who are ignoring relevant facts in the case so that you can rationalize your politically biased opinion.

 

[Valerie]

what relevant fact did i ignore?