Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    Others won't, but I'll take another Roberts. We do have a Trump presidency here.
    I would, too. But I fear what we're going to get is a Thomas or an Alito: ideologues who call their partisanship "neutral" and precedent that is inconvenient for them "activist." That's been the Originalist Scam since Scalia, and by all account Gorsuch is Not-dickish Scalia.

    We can't stop it, but that's not the same as it's healthy.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment


    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

      Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
      Others won't, but I'll take another Roberts.
      Ironic how many right-wing Republicans would say about Roberts, "you can have him!"


      I thought his petulance in the NFIB vs Sebelius ruling was childish and unbecoming. I would not have expected a Chief Justice to be so petty and passive-aggressive.
      "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

      "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

      "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

      "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

      Comment


      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

        Chief Justice means squat in the scheme of things. I mean, it gets you the right to pen opinions more or less, but it doesn't get you out of making the coffee.

        I suppose the right of refusal on opinions is a big deal, but only if you're in the majority. But it doesn't come with any more or less decorum than an associate justice.
        Code:
        As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
        College Hockey 6       College Football 0
        BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
        Originally posted by SanTropez
        May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
        Originally posted by bigblue_dl
        I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
        Originally posted by Kepler
        When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
        He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

        Comment


        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

          @dick_nixon: Don't let a psychiatrist get hold of this. https://***********/GovMikeHuckabee/...33855892709376

          @GovMikeHuckabee: Breaking News! Jimmy Dean Sausage Co will be renamed GORSUCH SAUSAGE because he's grinding up some Democrat Senators into PURE PORK SAUSAGE!


          I associate myself with the former President's remarks.
          CCT '77 & '78
          4 kids
          5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
          1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

          ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
          - Benjamin Franklin

          Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

          I want to live forever. So far, so good.

          Comment


          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Hahaha. God that man is as queer as a $3 bill.

            First the cross dressing comments now an obsession with sausage. I wish he would just come out of the closet and be happy.
            Code:
            As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
            College Hockey 6       College Football 0
            BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
            Originally posted by SanTropez
            May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
            Originally posted by bigblue_dl
            I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
            Originally posted by Kepler
            When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
            He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

            Comment


            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

              Question to the court experts here (which is pretty much one person.... )

              Gorsuch was challenged on his written decision of the "frozen trucker" case- I don't know much of the details, as I just heard the about the case this morning. But basically a trucker abandoned his trailer because the brakes locked up, and he could not move, and after so many hours of getting really cold, he left to warm up, and came back when a rescue finally arrive. He was fired.

              In the decision, Goursuch claimed that he ruled against the trucker because of what the law said in it. For other items, he claims that he was not happy with many of his decisions, as all he could do was rule on the law.

              So. Here's the question- isn't part of the job of a judge, especially a federal judge, to rule on the legality of a written law? If it's clear that the law is flawed, shouldn't the judge make a ruling based on that??

              In this case (again not knowing all of the details) given the life and health of the truck driver, shouldn't it be ok to drive off to not freeze and risk your life and NOT be fired over that? And if the law sides with the company, does that not take away rights of the worker for his own safety?

              If it IS proper for a federal judge to rule on the legality of a law- I'm wondering why Franken didn't challenge him on that particular aspect as well.

              Comment


              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                Question to the court experts here (which is pretty much one person.... )

                Gorsuch was challenged on his written decision of the "frozen trucker" case- I don't know much of the details, as I just heard the about the case this morning. But basically a trucker abandoned his trailer because the brakes locked up, and he could not move, and after so many hours of getting really cold, he left to warm up, and came back when a rescue finally arrive. He was fired.

                In the decision, Goursuch claimed that he ruled against the trucker because of what the law said in it. For other items, he claims that he was not happy with many of his decisions, as all he could do was rule on the law.

                So. Here's the question- isn't part of the job of a judge, especially a federal judge, to rule on the legality of a written law? If it's clear that the law is flawed, shouldn't the judge make a ruling based on that??

                In this case (again not knowing all of the details) given the life and health of the truck driver, shouldn't it be ok to drive off to not freeze and risk your life and NOT be fired over that? And if the law sides with the company, does that not take away rights of the worker for his own safety?

                If it IS proper for a federal judge to rule on the legality of a law- I'm wondering why Franken didn't challenge him on that particular aspect as well.
                Gorsuch only believes in rich and corporate "people" (Corporations are people now). That's well documented. That's why he was nominated. And that's why the ruling in the trucker case is not surprising. I personally find it appalling but I have a conscience.
                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                Comment


                • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                  Dont Just Read The Article Watch The Video

                  Franken owns him...Gorsuch cant even answer a simple question. Then Franken uses his own terminology to destroy his opinion. Brilliant theater.
                  "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                  -aparch

                  "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                  -INCH

                  Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                  -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                  Comment


                  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                    Dont Just Read The Article Watch The Video

                    Franken owns him...Gorsuch cant even answer a simple question. Then Franken uses his own terminology to destroy his opinion. Brilliant theater.
                    I agree. He nailed him. But, the corporation in that case is way more important than the life of that truck driver.
                    **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                      Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                      Dont Just Read The Article Watch The Video

                      Franken owns him...Gorsuch cant even answer a simple question. Then Franken uses his own terminology to destroy his opinion. Brilliant theater.
                      As I see it, he only owns him partially. Just about the basic interpretation vs. absurd conditions.

                      What he doesn't point out is the way the law is written that there's an obvious gray area that isn't spelled out correctly. THAT is what I am asking- as a judge, you interpret the language of the law. If the law does not make sense, and how it's written vs. the intent conflicts need to be ironed out. This is an obvious place where Franken could have challenged him on that aspect, which is a HUGE portion of being on the SCOTUS.

                      It's not just about interpreting the law as written, it's interpreting the correctness of the law. That's is where Franken could have REALLY nailed him.
                      Last edited by alfablue; 03-22-2017, 08:26 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                        Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                        Question to the court experts here (which is pretty much one person.... )

                        Gorsuch was challenged on his written decision of the "frozen trucker" case- I don't know much of the details, as I just heard the about the case this morning. But basically a trucker abandoned his trailer because the brakes locked up, and he could not move, and after so many hours of getting really cold, he left to warm up, and came back when a rescue finally arrive. He was fired.

                        In the decision, Goursuch claimed that he ruled against the trucker because of what the law said in it. For other items, he claims that he was not happy with many of his decisions, as all he could do was rule on the law.

                        So. Here's the question- isn't part of the job of a judge, especially a federal judge, to rule on the legality of a written law? If it's clear that the law is flawed, shouldn't the judge make a ruling based on that??

                        In this case (again not knowing all of the details) given the life and health of the truck driver, shouldn't it be ok to drive off to not freeze and risk your life and NOT be fired over that? And if the law sides with the company, does that not take away rights of the worker for his own safety?

                        If it IS proper for a federal judge to rule on the legality of a law- I'm wondering why Franken didn't challenge him on that particular aspect as well.
                        I'm not sure anyone, including Gorsuch, suggests the law itself is bad. Apparently there is a law that says you can't fire a truck driver for refusing to operate a truck for safety reasons. Sounds like a reasonable law.

                        As I understand the issue in the case Gorsuch participated in, the truck driver was stranded on the road in freezing weather when the brakes on the trailer froze up. His heater wasn't working and he started to get concerned for his safety. Dispatch said a repairman would be along, but it apparently took several hours. The driver eventually told dispatch he was going to unhook the trailer and drive somewhere to get help. He was told to either "drag the trailer with the frozen brakes" or stay where he was at until the repairman arrived, but to not abandon his load. He disobeyed, unhooked the trailer and left. The repairman showed up a few minutes later. The driver was fired for abandoning his trailer/load.

                        I think Gorsuch's view was there is some question about whether the driver was even fired for violating the statute. That is, was he fired because he refused to operate an unsafe piece of equipment. That went back to the option the driver was apparently presented by dispatch to either stay where he was or "drag" the frozen trailer.

                        But here is the decision if you want to read it.

                        https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf
                        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                          I think Gorsuch's view was there is some question about whether the driver was even fired for violating the statute. That is, was he fired because he refused to operate an unsafe piece of equipment. That went back to the option the driver was apparently presented by dispatch to either stay where he was or "drag" the frozen trailer.
                          Which was no option at all. Which Franken stated correctly was absurd.
                          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                            Which was no option at all. Which Franken stated correctly was absurd.
                            Well, there was an option. He could have stayed right where he was.
                            That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                              Well, there was an option. He could have stayed right where he was.
                              No, he could not. He was freezing to death. *** are you talking about?
                              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                                I think Gorsuch's view was there is some question about whether the driver was even fired for violating the statute. That is, was he fired because he refused to operate an unsafe piece of equipment. That went back to the option the driver was apparently presented by dispatch to either stay where he was or "drag" the frozen trailer.

                                But here is the decision if you want to read it.

                                https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf
                                Here's the line in the opinion:

                                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.
                                The option the driver took was to modify the vehicle so that he could remain safe, as the choices given were not safe.

                                And then points out that the law is not adequate for this situation. And that someone should, perhaps, write a follow up to the intent of the law.

                                Instead of pointing out that the law is wrong, as it put the driver's life into jeopardy (which is clearly the intent of the law), he sided that the firing did not violate the law, because he did something he was not given permission to do.

                                To me, this is a nurf toss to a good judge- the law does not work as intended. Fix it. That's his job to point out. Moreso on the SCOTUS.

                                Given the choice between freezing to death and dragging truck well below the normal lower speed limit (which is normally against the law, too), that's no a reasonable choice. And is an absurd situation, and the law is not adequate to it's intent to not be fired for trying to protect his health and safety.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X