• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court

PirateMk1 said:
Actually the dissent was incorrect. The administration was correct in this particular case. Further and I cannot tell if this was brought up or not but a driver is considered the equivalent of a PIC. Pilot in command. The vessel is under his responsibility while operating it almost to exclusivity. Further state laws and drivers manuals universally state that REGARDLESS of the law safety of the motoring public, the community at large and lastly oneself are superior wherever they may conflict. In this particular case the PIC made the call that staying in a freezing vehicle with no heat was dangerous and therefore utilized his vessel which combined was unsafe and immobile as was the disconnected vessels by remaining on the side of the road where the driver made the determination that he would eventually be incapacitated by remaining in the in the disconnected vessel with no heat, at which point he would be in danger, as would the public at large if he did not seek appropriate shelter. The majority opinion in this case was correct and Gorsuch was very much wrong. He failed to take into account the other laws which are in conflict with this law.
Click to expand...

opinion noted not shared. you seem to miss the BS that it was retaliation for being a whistleblower. The guy was fired for not following orders. Lots of people ignorant of the law seem to think that the law should be ignored because they didn't like the outcome. People can be fired for good reasons, bad reasons or no reason at all. To claim he was fired for being a whistleblower was BS
 
TurtleDude said:
opinion noted not shared. you seem to miss the BS that it was retaliation for being a whistleblower. The guy was fired for not following orders. Lots of people ignorant of the law seem to think that the law should be ignored because they didn't like the outcome. People can be fired for good reasons, bad reasons or no reason at all. To claim he was fired for being a whistleblower was BS
Click to expand...

He was actually a whistleblower in this case. I didn't miss that. Whether there was actual retaliation I don't know. The orders he was given by the letter of the laws where by any reasonable standards unsafe for himself and the public at large. (Note I used laws not law.) Therefore his firing could be considered retaliation for him not following their unsafe and unreasonable orders. Hence he is a whistleblower and entitled to that defense.

Note he probabley had a much better OSHA workplace violation case.
 
PirateMk1 said:
He was actually a whistleblower in this case. I didn't miss that. Whether there was retaliation I don't know. The orders he was given by the letter of the laws where by any reasonable standards unsafe for himself and the public at large. (Note I used laws not law.) Therefore his firing could be considered retaliation for him not following their unsafe and unreasonable orders. Hence he is a whistleblower and entitled to that defense.
Click to expand...

do you think that the government should have the power to prevent an employer from firing an employee anytime you don't like the reason for the firing? That's the real issue. This was not a whistleblower case. Its not a Chevron deference case either despite the majority trying to pretend it was to give the administrative decision more support against the court overturning it. The employer might have been "Wrong" to fire the guy but that should not have been a decision that a federal agency should be able to second guess
 
TurtleDude said:
do you think that the government should have the power to prevent an employer from firing an employee anytime you don't like the reason for the firing? That's the real issue. This was not a whistleblower case. Its not a Chevron deference case either despite the majority trying to pretend it was to give the administrative decision more support against the court overturning it. The employer might have been "Wrong" to fire the guy but that should not have been a decision that a federal agency should be able to second guess
Click to expand...

I am going by the law as it is. Note I am a professional in the trade so I know the inside baseball stuff in this particular field of endeavor, transportation and logistics.
If you ask SHOULD then I would say no the feds shouldn't get involved per say. That said the laws are such they CAN. This was a wrongful termination case/ whistleblower case, and under the current law I disagree with you and Gorsuch, I agree with the majority opinion the company should be held liable under current law. You and Gorsuch would be right if the law was examined in isolation of the other laws and regulations on the books. That said the law is not in isolation but part of broader set of laws and regulations with lessor and greater weights, some of which give leeway to a PIC. Thus Gorsuch's opinion was much too narrow in the scope of the law. The time for such narrow focus is when dealing exclusively with a constitutional law matter as there are no other laws above the Constitution.

Notice I have commented only on the law and not on the company or the morality of the decision.
 
danarhea said:
Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history, and it took the nuclear option to put him on the bench. That will have dire consequences in the future for the Senate. Just wait until the Democrats regain power there (I think in 2020). For all intents and purposes, the filibuster is about to become the dodo bird.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

Whats funny is these are the consequenes of Harry Rieds rule change in 2013.

What goes around comes around ? This is the coming around part, and the only people outraged are HRC supporters.
Theyre angry people anyway. Everyone else remembers what a dirt bag Harry Ried was
 
Good riddance to the filibuster. The biggest arsewipe to use it was the clown Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham.
 
TurtleDude said:
you mean two other judges? BFD. some of the justices I bet you adore were often on the losing side of things. RBG for example has been on more dissents than majorities on major cases.

sometimes a dissenting opinion ends up having the most weight down the road too
Click to expand...

Yes, Neil Gorsuch stands out. Seven judges heard Alphonse Maddin’s case. Six sided with the frozen trucker.
Click to expand...

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/23/neil_gorsuch_and_the_case_of
 
TurtleDude said:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. (that's three I believe): the other two-one is a clinton appointee, the other an Obama appointee

here read up

Gorsuch TransAm Trucking Trucker | National Review

those other three you talk about were an administrative court
Click to expand...

Whatever makes you and Gorsuch feel better.

He was the ONLY descending judge.

He ALWAYS sides with business.

He will NEVER have "The People" best interest in mind.

He's a bought-out corporate jerk.
 
Middleground said:
Whatever makes you and Gorsuch feel better.

He was the ONLY descending judge.

He ALWAYS sides with business.

He will NEVER have "The People" best interest in mind.

He's a bought-out corporate jerk.
Click to expand...

translation-don't like the law

don't like the result

complain rather than actually deal with the fact that a 2-1 decision happens all the time and in this case Gorsuch actually followed the law
 
TurtleDude said:
that's BS. the trucker case-a dissent, was a fair reading of the law as it was written.
Click to expand...
If that would have been th case he would not have been the sole dissenter. This is evidenced by the fact the for a man of such great integrity he did not answer the question of what he would have done if he was the trucker, a reasonable question and a common standard as what would a reasonable person do.
 
MaggieD said:
:lamo

And et confirmed unanimously as a Federal judge.
Click to expand...

That's the laughable part. Democrats couldn't muster up one bad vote against him as federal judge and yet he is completely unqualified for the supreme court. I'm trying to figure out how that adds up. There's really only two anwers:

1. Democrats wanted payback for Garland.

2. Democrats didn't want the court leaning back to the right.
 
TurtleDude said:
translation-don't like the law

don't like the result

complain rather than actually deal with the fact that a 2-1 decision happens all the time and in this case Gorsuch actually followed the law
Click to expand...

No. Not at all.
 
TurtleDude said:
Gorsuch's dissent was actually correct. trying to pretend that the trucker was fired for "whistleblowing" is bogus and the Majority's use of Chevron was silly. Here is the gist of his dissent

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. The Department of Labor says that TransAm 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, TransAm 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.
Click to expand...

Of course, if waiting meant suicide, which is illegal, and since a corporation cannot force an employee to break the law, you're wrong.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I dunno, Dana.

The filibuster was pretty much non existent until the 80's. For a variety of reasons it has gone from an obscure "break glass in case of emergency" tactic to standard operating procedure. Maybe doing away with it won't be the worst thing in the world.

I guess we're about to find out...
Click to expand...

The right doesn't seem to understand.

The filibuster was conservatives tool to prevent dramatic change. They just threw it away first by torching it with their historical levels of petty obstructionism and then by throwing out the last little bit of it the first time they meet any resistance. It was a really stupid set of moves on their part, really short sighted.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
do you think that the government should have the power to prevent an employer from firing an employee anytime you don't like the reason for the firing? That's the real issue. This was not a whistleblower case. Its not a Chevron deference case either despite the majority trying to pretend it was to give the administrative decision more support against the court overturning it. The employer might have been "Wrong" to fire the guy but that should not have been a decision that a federal agency should be able to second guess
Click to expand...

This is the most pathetic strawman i've ever heard. It's not because the reason is disliked, it's because it's illegal.
 
Middleground said:
Whatever makes you and Gorsuch feel better.

He was the ONLY descending judge.

He ALWAYS sides with business.

He will NEVER have "The People" best interest in mind.

He's a bought-out corporate jerk.
Click to expand...

That was his major qualification. They needed a justice they controlled.
 
prometeus said:
If that would have been th case he would not have been the sole dissenter.
Click to expand...

I've told you before about this tendency of yours to use the Appeal to Popularity/Numbers fallacy. You deny you do it, yet, here you are again. :roll:


This is evidenced by the fact the for a man of such great integrity he did not answer the question of what he would have done if he was the trucker
Click to expand...

It isn't relevant to his role as a judge in that case.


a reasonable question and a common standard as what would a reasonable person do.
Click to expand...

That's a standard for some things, mostly tort. It's not a standard for everything. This is nothing more than back-of-the-cereal-box lawyering on your part.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I dunno, Dana.

The filibuster was pretty much non existent until the 80's. For a variety of reasons it has gone from an obscure "break glass in case of emergency" tactic to standard operating procedure. Maybe doing away with it won't be the worst thing in the world.

I guess we're about to find out...
Click to expand...

It needs to go.
 
Middleground said:
Whatever makes you and Gorsuch feel better.

He was the ONLY descending judge.

He ALWAYS sides with business.

He will NEVER have "The People" best interest in mind.

He's a bought-out corporate jerk.
Click to expand...


You will note that I sided against Gorsuch in the freezing trucker case. That said Gorsuch IMO is none of those derisive things you said. He has only one flaw I can see and that is that he tends to be only at times too narrowly focused. I think he will make a fine Justice.
 
The problem with Gorsuch is that he's a blatant partisan. We need more justices who will examine cases through the lens of the constitution, rather than inserting their own biases into their decisions.

But unfortunately, that's not likely to happen. Democrats give us partisans because Republicans gave us partisans, and now we're back to Republicans giving us partisans because the Democrats gave us partisans.
 
Absentglare said:
The right doesn't seem to understand.

The filibuster was conservatives tool to prevent dramatic change. They just threw it away first by torching it with their historical levels of petty obstructionism and then by throwing out the last little bit of it the first time they meet any resistance. It was a really stupid set of moves on their part, really short sighted.
Click to expand...
The filibuster was a tool available to either party so your statement is nonsensical.
 
Of course you're wrong since in 99.99999999% of cases he been in the mainstream.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The filibuster was a tool available to either party so your statement is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Liberals are more prone to embrace change. I was right, you seem unaware of the advantage.

The conservatives should have been deciding very carefully when to apply the filibuster and when not to. Because they lacked the integrity to pick their battles, their constituents will see much more of the "liberal agenda" make its way through congress when the pendulum swings to the other side. Indiscriminate, prejudiced obstruction was good short-term politics, but bad for their long-term policy positions.
 
Gaea said:
The problem with Gorsuch is that he's a blatant partisan. We need more justices who will examine cases through the lens of the constitution, rather than inserting their own biases into their decisions.

But unfortunately, that's not likely to happen. Democrats give us partisans because Republicans gave us partisans, and now we're back to Republicans giving us partisans because the Democrats gave us partisans.
Click to expand...

As I said in another thread, HW Bush and Reagan gave us O'Conner, Souter and Kennedy. When was the last time a democrat named even a moderate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom