Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Neil Gorsuch supreme court nomination
#1
The length of cuelty these rightwingers go to shaft ordinary working citizens is truly mind boggling (see here for an even more noteworthy case). And these guys are calling themselves Christians..

From Think Progress:

Watch Al Franken shut down Gorsuch’s cruel decision in the ‘Frozen Trucker’ case

Senator Al Franken (D-MN), as he said himself during Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday, used to have “a career in identifying absurdity” as a humorist and one of SNL’s original writers. Ironically, his early career has carried over rather too well to policy making, as he demonstrated while grilling Gorsuch about his ruling in the so-called “Frozen Trucker case.”

The case at hand is that of Alphonse Maddin, a truck driver for TransAm. The brakes on Maddin’s trailer locked up on a subzero January night, and he called for help from TransAm’s road service. They told him to wait, and he did — for two hours, despite discovering that the heat in his truck cab was broken. When he was woken by a phone call, he had a numb torso and couldn’t feel his feet.
If you fall asleep waiting in 14 below zero weather, you can freeze to death. You can die,” Franken explained in his retelling of the case.

Maddin called back TransAm’s road service, who told him to “hang in there.” He waited 30 more minutes. Then, he unhitched his broken trailer and drove off seeking help. About fifteen minutes later, when the repair truck finally arrived, Maddin drove back to meet it.

TransAm fired him for abandoning his trailer, and Maddin filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), citing a statute that prohibits an employer for firing an employee for refusing to “operate a vehicle because . . . the employee has a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public because of the vehicle’s hazardous safety or security condition.”

Gorsuch, however, concluded that the statute didn’t protect Maddin, because he had operated his vehicle — the cab of his truck. And, in his decision, Gorsuch described Maddin’s situation like so:
Quote:“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 his questioning, Franken criticized Gorsuch for describing the night as merely “cold” and laid out the choice Maddin faced more realistically: “There were two safety issues here. One, the possibility of freezing to death, or driving with that rig in a very, very dangerous way.”

Then Franken asked Gorsuch what he would have done in Maddin’s case. Gorsuch evaded answering, saying he wasn’t in Maddin’s shoes. He also appealed to it as solely legal ruling — which Franken also ripped apart.

What you’re talking about here is the plain meaning rule. Here is what the rule means. When the plain meaning of a statute is clear on its face, when its meaning is obvious, courts have no business looking beyond the meaning to the statute’s purpose. And that’s what you used, right?,” Franken said. Gorsuch agreed that that was what was argued.

But the plain meaning rule has an exception. When using the plain meaning rule would create an absurd result, courts should depart from the plain meaning. It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. That’s absurd.”

“Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity,” Franken continued. “And I know it when I see it. And it makes me — you know, it makes me question your judgment,” he said.

Later in his testimony, Gorsuch argued that this exception to the plain meaning rule should not apply in Maddin’s case. Nevertheless, there are other reasons why Gorsuch could have sided with Maddin. As the two other appeals court judges hearing this case noted, a federal agency read the word “operate” in this law more broadly than Gorsuch, and Supreme Court precedent calls upon judges to be deferential to agencies in these contexts.
Additionally, as Fordham law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman notes, the law could also be read to allow Maddin to refuse to operate the truck  while the trailer with the frozen brakes was attached.
Reply
#2
Quote:Jeffrey Perkins, whose son Luke was the subject of a unanimous 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2008, was among several people called before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday for testimony on Gorsuch. Perkins said Gorsuch's views had threatened Luke's access to an appropriate education and "a meaningful and dignified life" when the judge sided with Colorado's Thompson School District over the family in the case. The district argued it had complied with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act when it refused to reimburse the Perkins family for Luke's tuition at a private school in Boston.

The Perkins family argued that the Boston school had produced "astounding progress" for their son and that remaining in the Thompson School District would have caused him to regress. In his opinion, Gorsuch said that to comply with IDEA, the district needed only to show it had produced gains for students that were "merely more than de minimis." "Judge Gorsuch thought that an education for my son that was even one small step above insignificant was acceptable," Perkins said on Thursday. "On behalf of all children, disabled, typical, and gifted, I urge you to deny confirmation to Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States."
Father of child with autism urges senators to oppose Neil Gorsuch - Business Insider
Reply
#3
Quote:"I was there in [2016] when the president nominated Merrick Garland. All of them said the same thing. The president can't nominate someone this close to an election," said Franken, who previously served on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Coney Barrett went on CBS TV after Scalia died and made the exact same case, saying that the president can't nominate someone during an election year. She contrasted it to when Anthony Kennedy was sworn in, in February of '88. She made the point that that had come from Powell's resignation. She said well, that's a conservative judge and the new judge, justice will be conservative. That's appropriate. But when she said Scalia was an arch-conservative or committed conservative, whatever the word she used and said that Obama appointee would change the balance of the court and that was inappropriate." "You go back and see her words. She's a total hypocrite," added Franken. "Not only are the Republican members of the Senate hypocrites, they wouldn't meet with Merrick Garland. They lied about what the so-called Biden Rule was. there was no Biden Rule." "Also she's a terrible choice in so many ways," said Franken. "I questioned her, as you may remember, she had taken money from the [Alliance Defending Freedom], a hate group, Southern Poverty Law Center had labeled them as a hate group. They are for the sterilization of transgender people. She took money from them. She's an extreme choice and believes … that life starts at conception and that it would be a crime to destroy an egg that was fertilized in in vitro fertilization, a frozen egg."
Al Franken buries Amy Coney Barrett in brutal MSNBC interview - Alternet.org
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Republican nomination, ok, but Donald for President? Admin 15 22,528 09-14-2016, 03:33 AM
Last Post: Admin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)