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

[Wisko McBadgerton]

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

I wonder if Gorsuch might not say that if I found myself in a spot similar to the trucker's position, nearly out of gas, freezing -- it would be a reasonable decision on my part to take possession of your parked car to go and get help and save myself. But it probably wouldn't be a legal one as I guess I just stole your car.

This case is in the news as it seems to both indicate Gorsuch's dislike of Chevron and his interest in sticking to what he thinks the law actually says. He argues the majority say that the law is ambiguous and therefore they rely on the federal agency's guidance for clarity (citing Chevron) when in his view the law isn't ambiguous at all and a judge shouldn't jump through hoops to conclude it is.

[SJHovey]

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

No, he could not. He was freezing to death. *** are you talking about?

He was huh? You know a lot of guys who have frozen to death in two hours, sitting in truck, even in below zero weather? Impossible. Yeah, he was so close to death that the first thing he did when the repair guy fixed his truck was ask where he should fuel up.

His whole story was b.s., and apparently Gorsuch was the only one willing to see through it. The guy was cold, and he was tired of waiting.

I knew next to nothing about Gorsuch until I heard about this story, and googled the opinion. Now I kind of like the guy, actually.

The law was passed for a very good reason. We don't want unscrupulous trucking companies to be able to order truck drivers out on the road with unsafe equipment, with the threat of termination hanging over their heads. I support that law 100%.

But that's not what happened here. This guy wasn't fired because we wouldn't follow the company's orders to operate an unsafe truck. In fact, he was told not to move. If the stupid dispatcher hadn't tried to be a smartazz and tell the guy to drag the frozen truck to town if he didn't like waiting in the cold, that case never even makes it to Gorsuch.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

He protected the corporation from being sued. That's all he did. He took what clearly is a poorly written law and twisted it so the corporation could fire the guy and then after firing him could avoid paying him.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

And what's sad is who's out there writing laws for the little guy anymore? Not many. We have the Constitution to protect us and that's about it.

[unofan]

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.

Legality doesn't equate with fairness, or what is right. Legality simply means "does the law say X, and is that okay under the Constitution?"

Now U.S. Courts at the state and federal levels are not only courts of law, but also equity. So judges are allowed to play fairsees, as one of my professors liked to say. But they don't have to.

[SJHovey]

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

Here's the line in the opinion:



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.

You guys are still misunderstanding the case, and what the employer argued and Gorsuch endorsed. The guy wasn't fired for refusing to operate unsafe equipment. That's what the law prohibits, and he wasn't fired for that.

Let's change the facts. Let's say the brakes froze up and the driver reports it. The employer then orders him to drag the frozen truck down the highway to the repair shop. The driver refuses and is fired.

That is illegal. I have no doubt Gorsuch would rule that way too. That's what the law is written to prevent. We don't want people driving unsafe trucks down the road.

But none of that occurred here. The guy was fired because he unhooked the trailer and left it sitting beside the road.

You, Franken and everyone else wants to argue that it was "unfair" to the driver. Yeah, it was. But tough. The law doesn't prevent employers from treating employees unfairly. I'm going to guess pretty much all of you are "at-will" employees which means that if the employer decides that today is your day to be fired, unfair or not, today is your day.

[unofan]

You guys are still misunderstanding the case, and what the employer argued and Gorsuch endorsed. The guy wasn't fired for refusing to operate unsafe equipment. That's what the law prohibits, and he wasn't fired for that.

Let's change the facts. Let's say the brakes froze up and the driver reports it. The employer then orders him to drag the frozen truck down the highway to the repair shop. The driver refuses and is fired.

That is illegal. I have no doubt Gorsuch would rule that way too. That's what the law is written to prevent. We don't want people driving unsafe trucks down the road.

But none of that occurred here. The guy was fired because he unhooked the trailer and left it sitting beside the road.

You, Franken and everyone else wants to argue that it was "unfair" to the driver. Yeah, it was. But tough. The law doesn't prevent employers from treating employees unfairly. I'm going to guess pretty much all of you are "at-will" employees which means that if the employer decides that today is your day to be fired, unfair or not, today is your day.

At will doesn't mean you can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all, not since the 1960s, anyway. It means you can be fired for any legal reason. Just because you are at will doesn't mean your boss can fire you because of your race, for instance. There are all sorts of laws prohibiting termination for various reasons, and they apply to everyone, even if they're at will.

[Handyman]

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

First of all it was 3 hours...and hypothermia can start to set in 20-30 minutes. Will you die...doubtful but you will be putting yourself at risk of serious damage. Sitting there in the cab was an unreasonable request which is what Franken was saying at the end. (and he pointed out correctly makes the argument absurd)

Herein lies the trouble with people like Gorsuch who go by "the letter of the law"...it doesnt allow for logic to prevail which, again, is what Franken is saying. It doesnt take a legal scholar to see why the firing was absurd. The law is stupidly written and too narrow and as a judge he should be able to say that.

It would help if he was better at answering questions too...

[alfablue]

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

You guys are still misunderstanding the case, and what the employer argued and Gorsuch endorsed. The guy wasn't fired for refusing to operate unsafe equipment. That's what the law prohibits, and he wasn't fired for that.

Let's change the facts. Let's say the brakes froze up and the driver reports it. The employer then orders him to drag the frozen truck down the highway to the repair shop. The driver refuses and is fired.

That is illegal. I have no doubt Gorsuch would rule that way too. That's what the law is written to prevent. We don't want people driving unsafe trucks down the road.

But none of that occurred here. The guy was fired because he unhooked the trailer and left it sitting beside the road.

You, Franken and everyone else wants to argue that it was "unfair" to the driver. Yeah, it was. But tough. The law doesn't prevent employers from treating employees unfairly. I'm going to guess pretty much all of you are "at-will" employees which means that if the employer decides that today is your day to be fired, unfair or not, today is your day.

Except that was the option that could have saved his life.

Again, Gorsuch said that the law was not adequate for the situation, not me- it's in his opinion that points out the lack of law that specifically covers this situation. But instead of ruling against the law, he rules based on the words of the law.

Gorsuch never suggested that the driver was BS. Ever. Or even wrong. Even in the hearing, he pointed out that he felt empathy with the driver.

I'm not sure how to interpret the "tough" line when given the choice between life and death. You suggest that he should stick it out and risk his health because he was told to. No option to leave, make sure you are ok, and then come back.

[Handyman]

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

You guys are still misunderstanding the case, and what the employer argued and Gorsuch endorsed. The guy wasn't fired for refusing to operate unsafe equipment. That's what the law prohibits, and he wasn't fired for that.

Let's change the facts. Let's say the brakes froze up and the driver reports it. The employer then orders him to drag the frozen truck down the highway to the repair shop. The driver refuses and is fired.

That is illegal. I have no doubt Gorsuch would rule that way too. That's what the law is written to prevent. We don't want people driving unsafe trucks down the road.

But none of that occurred here. The guy was fired because he unhooked the trailer and left it sitting beside the road.

You, Franken and everyone else wants to argue that it was "unfair" to the driver. Yeah, it was. But tough. The law doesn't prevent employers from treating employees unfairly. I'm going to guess pretty much all of you are "at-will" employees which means that if the employer decides that today is your day to be fired, unfair or not, today is your day.

If they fire me because I refuse to work in an unsafe environment I can definitely fight them about it and will probably get compensation. That is what this guy did. They should not have fired him because he refused to sit in the cab of an unheated truck for hours on end.

I dont think Gorsuch is evil or anything...but I completely disagree with his opinion and his reasoning behind it.

[unofan]

Except that was the option that could have saved his life.

Again, Gorsuch said that the law was not adequate for the situation, not me- it's in his opinion that points out the lack of law that specifically covers this situation. But instead of ruling against the law, he rules based on the words of the law.

Gorsuch never suggested that the driver was BS. Ever. Or even wrong. Even in the hearing, he pointed out that he felt empathy with the driver.

I'm not sure how to interpret the "tough" line when given the choice between life and death. You suggest that he should stick it out and risk his health because he was told to. No option to leave, make sure you are ok, and then come back.

If you rule against the law, the driver still loses, because absent a law or a contract prohibiting termination for a given reason, you can be fired for that reason.

Your boss could fire you tomorrow because you like hockey and he doesn't. That's completely unfair, but perfectly legal.

[alfablue]

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

Legality doesn't equate with fairness, or what is right. Legality simply means "does the law say X, and is that okay under the Constitution?"

Now U.S. Courts at the state and federal levels are not only courts of law, but also equity. So judges are allowed to play fairsees, as one of my professors liked to say. But they don't have to.

Doesn't that mean he should have the ability to judge the law?

Gorsuch even pointed out the lack of specific coverage of this instance for the law. And there's little doubt of the intention of the law. So given that he points out there's no direct application, why doesn't he point that out? And that's what I think Senator Franken should point out.

I'm not even trying to point out fairness- I'm pointing out a hole in the law that was outlined in the opinion.

[alfablue]

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

If you rule against the law, the driver still loses, because absent a law or a contract prohibiting termination for a given reason, you can be fired for that reason.

Your boss could fire you tomorrow because you like hockey and he doesn't. That's completely unfair, but perfectly legal.

Ok, I can see that. So if there's an obvious hole in the law like this case, what can judges do to enforce the clear intent of the law?

[unofan]

Doesn't that mean he should have the ability to judge the law?

Gorsuch even pointed out the lack of specific coverage of this instance for the law. And there's little doubt of the intention of the law. So given that he points out there's no direct application, why doesn't he point that out? And that's what I think Senator Franken should point out.

I'm not even trying to point out fairness- I'm pointing out a hole in the law that was outlined in the opinion.

Judges can interpret ambiguous laws. They can't fix crystal clear but poorly drafted laws.

If a law says "red things are banned," a judge can interpret "red" as narrowly or broadly as he deems appropriate, subject to appellate review. Maybe it includes pink, maybe anything with a touch of red dye, or maybe just things that are solid red. The judge could also find that banning red things is unconstitutional.

But he can't say "red" also means "blue," even if the intent is clear that blue should be included.

[SJHovey]

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

If they fire me because I refuse to work in an unsafe environment I can definitely fight them about it and will probably get compensation. That is what this guy did. They should not have fired him because he refused to sit in the cab of an unheated truck for hours on end.

I dont think Gorsuch is evil or anything...but I completely disagree with his opinion and his reasoning behind it.

You might get unemployment. Most of the time you only get turned down for unemployment if you engage in misconduct or something like that. But you won't be able to get anything else.

Let's change the facts slightly. Let's say this guy was working for an auto dealership and was driving a passenger vehicle to have it delivered to another dealership. He goes into the ditch in freezing weather. He calls his boss and tells him he's freezing. He waits for a few hours for a wrecker that doesn't appear.

Finally, he tells his boss he is abandoning the car and hitching a ride with a driver who has stopped. His boss instructs him not to abandon the car. He disobeys because he is "freezing to death."

He's fired.

Completely unfair. But he has no claim. Will probably get unemployment, but that will be it. And that's really the same fact situation we have in the Gorsuch case.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

You might get unemployment. Most of the time you only get turned down for unemployment if you engage in misconduct or something like that. But you won't be able to get anything else.

Let's change the facts slightly. Let's say this guy was working for an auto dealership and was driving a passenger vehicle to have it delivered to another dealership. He goes into the ditch in freezing weather. He calls his boss and tells him he's freezing. He waits for a few hours for a wrecker that doesn't appear.

Finally, he tells his boss he is abandoning the car and hitching a ride with a driver who has stopped. His boss instructs him not to abandon the car. He disobeys because he is "freezing to death."

He's fired.

Completely unfair. But he has no claim. Will probably get unemployment, but that will be it. And that's really the same fact situation we have in the Gorsuch case.

That's interesting but the employer in this case and in the hypothetical you cite is breaking the law by providing an unsafe work environment. Last time I checked you cannot be fired for refusing to work under an OSHA violation.