Honorable Justice Gorsuch

[Gaius46]

That's actually false. Gorsuch erroneously claimed that Maddin waived the law by choosing to take the only course of action he had available to avoid freezing to death. That's why the other 6 judges unanimously disagreed with Gorsuch, and how Gorsuch signaled his willingness to **** individuals over to protect unlawful decisions by corporations.

I don't believe any interpretation for his unconscionable ruling except that Gorsuch was grandstanding for his conservativecorporatist principles. He soon showed up on President Trump's short list for SCOTUS nominees.

For reference here's a link to the opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf

The case was argued before 3 judges, not 7, with a 2-1 decision. Gorsuch did not claim that Madden "waived the law," he claimed it was not applicable in this case because Congress wrote the law to address safety with respect to operation.


From page 1 and 2 of the 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. 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.

You can argue that you disagree with the decision, that it was cruel or unkind. But it is the way most textualists would read the situation. He didn't make up law here - he applied it as written. The other two judges, not so much.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Here's the rest from that link:



He is a faker, he is inconsistent, he does speak in a stream of consciousness, he does have an ego, and he did get away with not turning over his tax returns.

I see nothing in there that credibly jeopardizes her ability to assess the travel ban, for example. Hell, even if his lack of turning over tax returns somehow makes its way into court, her statement is legitimate so it doesn't jeopardize impartiality: he did get away with not turning over his tax returns.

You left out some of the worst like I knew you would.

"I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president,

"To think that there's a possibility that he could be president ... "

Not factual statements, opinion.

 

[Absentglare]

For reference here's a link to the opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf

The case was argued before 3 judges, not 7, with a 2-1 decision. Gorsuch did not claim that Madden "waived the law," he claimed it was not applicable in this case because Congress wrote the law to address safety with respect to operation.


From page 1 and 2 of the dissent:




You can argue that you disagree with the decision, that it was cruel or unkind. But it is the way most textualists would read the situation. He didn't make up law here - he applied it as written. The other two judges, not so much.

It was in the court of appeals because the employer lost the original case. Literally no other judge who ever oversaw this case thought Gorsuch's incorrect interpretation was correct. You're just reading off canned editorials by corporatist shills. The law cited was specifically to protect worker safety. The employee refused to operate the vehicle as ordered because he credibly believed that it put his life into immediate jeopardy. The winning opinion cites precedents involving other drivers who were protected by the same statue where they refused to operate their vehicles as ordered, but still operated the vehicles in a different fashion, for example, partially unloading an overweight truck after being ordered to continue with an unsafe load.

The law, as it is written, is intended to protect employee safety. Gorsuch took the exact opposite approach, arguing that the safety of the employee is irrelevant and that the law is intended to protect employers from lost cargo. In short, Gorsuch is a liar or incompetent.

 

[Absentglare]

You left out some of the worst like I knew you would.




Not factual statements, opinion.

If she couldn't imagine what it would be like, then it would be a fact that she couldn't imagine what it would be like. That's not even a criticism, it's an acknowledgement of uncertainty.

 

[Gaius46]

It was in the court of appeals because the employer lost the original case. Literally no other judge who ever oversaw this case thought Gorsuch's incorrect interpretation was correct. You're just reading off canned editorials by corporatist shills. The law cited was specifically to protect worker safety. The employee refused to operate the vehicle as ordered because he credibly believed that it put his life into immediate jeopardy. The winning opinion cites precedents involving other drivers who were protected by the same statue where they refused to operate their vehicles as ordered, but still operated the vehicles in a different fashion, for example, partially unloading an overweight truck after being ordered to continue with an unsafe load.

The law, as it is written, is intended to protect employee safety. Gorsuch took the exact opposite approach, arguing that the safety of the employee is irrelevant and that the law is intended to protect employers from lost cargo. In short, Gorsuch is a liar or incompetent.

Actually I'm reading the opinion. I tend to prefer primary sources. And I understand that the law is intended to protect worker safety but that does not mean it is applicable in every situation were worker safety is implicated.

I disagree at least as far as Gorsuch's motivations are concerned. His interpretation of the statute is largely in line with his judicial philosophy. I'm not going to suggest evil motives on his part just because his opinion went against the little guy. His job is not to protect the little guy. That's Congress' job if it's anyone's. His job is to apply the law as he interprets it to the circumstances he's presented with. He did that. Just because you disagree with him does not make the man evil or a corporate shill. He might be. But you can't make that case based on this opinion.

 

[OpportunityCost]

If she couldn't imagine what it would be like, then it would be a fact that she couldn't imagine what it would be like. That's not even a criticism, it's an acknowledgement of uncertainty.

This is the kind of argument that loses you credibility. We both know its a criticism. Trying to cover for it just makes your argument look foolish.

 

[Absentglare]

This is the kind of argument that loses you credibility. We both know its a criticism. Trying to cover for it just makes your argument look foolish.

His presidency was uncertain. Again, he is fake, he is a serial liar, and he constantly changes his mind. It's hard to know what he stands for. You can claim that's "bias", but to the extent that it's based on observations, it can be argued to be "judgment".

 

[OpportunityCost]

His presidency was uncertain. Again, he is fake, he is a serial liar, and he constantly changes his mind. It's hard to know what he stands for. You can claim that's "bias", but to the extent that it's based on observations, it can be argued to be "judgment".

Sigh, this just shows you don't understand the standard SCOTUS judges usually adhere to. They don't make judgments about the personalities of President. They discuss policy, they discuss issues, they advocate.

Its judgment, its bad judgment.

 

[Absentglare]

Sigh, this just shows you don't understand the standard SCOTUS judges usually adhere to. They don't make judgments about the personalities of President. They discuss policy, they discuss issues, they advocate.

Its judgment, its bad judgment.

Sigh, this just shows you don't understand the standard POTUS candidates usually adhere to. They release their tax returns and don't make a point of manipulating their constituents with lies, division, and fear rather than honesty, unity, and hope. They discuss policy, rather than fanning the flames of implicit racism.

It's judgement, it's good judgment.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Sigh, this just shows you don't understand the standard POTUS candidates usually adhere to. They release their tax returns and don't make a point of manipulating their constituents with lies, division, and fear rather than honesty, unity, and hope. They discuss policy, rather than fanning the flames of implicit racism.

It's judgement, it's good judgment.

OMG, what a nice fantasy.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Sigh, this just shows you don't understand the standard POTUS candidates usually adhere to. They release their tax returns and don't make a point of manipulating their constituents with lies, division, and fear rather than honesty, unity, and hope. They discuss policy, rather than fanning the flames of implicit racism.

It's judgement, it's good judgment.

You don't seem to be getting the message, Justices stay out of politics to avoid any appearance of partiality. Its part of the job description. You keep justifying her actions when there isn't a justification, she shouldn't have made her comments. Everyone gets that you hate Trump and will make every rationalization possible but RBG isn't supposed to hate anyone in politics, its part of the job description about justice being blind. There is a reason they discuss issues, not candidates.

 

[Absentglare]

You don't seem to be getting the message, Justices stay out of politics to avoid any appearance of partiality. Its part of the job description. You keep justifying her actions when there isn't a justification, she shouldn't have made her comments. Everyone gets that you hate Trump and will make every rationalization possible but RBG isn't supposed to hate anyone in politics, its part of the job description about justice being blind. There is a reason they discuss issues, not candidates.

Oh? So you're claiming that Scalia never got political?

How stupid do you think i am, trying to fool me with this "judges should not be political" just like "football should not be political" with ALL the selective outrage EXCLUSIVELY focused on when that "political" nature leans ever so slightly to the left?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Oh? So you're claiming that Scalia never got political?

How stupid do you think i am, trying to fool me with this "judges should not be political" just like "football should not be political" with ALL the selective outrage EXCLUSIVELY focused on when that "political" nature leans ever so slightly to the left?

...please. As I have said previously and you seem to ignore, the Justices tend to weigh in on issues and advocacy, not candidates. The issue is not right or left but a specific candidate. You aren't adhering to the discussion at hand, you are veering all over the place.

 

[Absentglare]

...please. As I have said previously and you seem to ignore, the Justices tend to weigh in on issues and advocacy, not candidates. The issue is not right or left but a specific candidate. You aren't adhering to the discussion at hand, you are veering all over the place.

How deliberate is your selective ignorance? Scalia was happy to buddy-up with Dick Cheney, a "candidate", going hunting with him and getting rides on Air Force Two.

 

[OpportunityCost]

How deliberate is your selective ignorance? Scalia was happy to buddy-up with Dick Cheney, a "candidate", going hunting with him and getting rides on Air Force Two.

I don't know, how selective is yours?

Scalia Angrily Defends His Duck Hunt With Cheney - The New York Times

During the hunting trip to Louisiana, which the memorandum said involved 13 hunters as well as Mr. Cheney's security detail, ``I never hunted in the same blind with the vice president,'' he said.

``Nor was I alone with him at any time during the trip,'' he continued, ``except, perhaps, for instances so brief and unintentional that I would not recall them - walking to or from a boat, perhaps, or going to or from dinner. Of course we said not a word about the present case.''

 

[Absentglare]

I don't know, how selective is yours?

Scalia Angrily Defends His Duck Hunt With Cheney - The New York Times

Exactly my point. You embrace legitimate impropriety by right wingers when they lie about it, but you condemn innocent public statements.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Exactly my point. You embrace legitimate impropriety by right wingers when they lie about it, but you condemn innocent public statements.

LOL a public statement condemning a candidate betrays animus. A trip both were on but had little to no interaction on betrays nothing.

 

[Absentglare]

LOL a public statement condemning a candidate betrays animus. A trip both were on but had little to no interaction on betrays nothing.

No it doesn't. She issued no condemnation. You're using a ridiculous and partisan double standard of letting Scalia get away with murder while RBG mentioned that President Trump had an ego.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

During the election that crone made unprecedented comments against candidate Trump. She can't be trusted to judge fairly or impartially as a justice given her commentary made public. Did Elena Kagan or Sotomayor recuse themselves during the trial when Obama's health insurance mandate was being heard?

Sam Alito sat there mouthing "Not true" during Obama's SOTU, but I didn't see him recusing himself from any Obama related adjudications. Just stop, please.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No it doesn't. She issued no condemnation. You're using a ridiculous and partisan double standard of letting Scalia get away with murder while RBG mentioned that President Trump had an ego.

You have your opinion rooted in your partisanship, I have the quotes of what she said.

 

[KLATTU]

Sam Alito sat there mouthing "Not true" during Obama's SOTU, but I didn't see him recusing himself from any Obama related adjudications. Just stop, please.

That ruling was already made. What does that have to do with anything?
and he didn't criticize Obama , just his off-base interpretation of that case.
Total non-sequitir.

 

[Absentglare]

You have your opinion rooted in your partisanship, I have the quotes of what she said.

And there's no more reason for her to recuse herself than there was when Scalia was ruling on Cheney's case.

 

[OpportunityCost]

And there's no more reason for her to recuse herself than there was when Scalia was ruling on Cheney's case.

You couldn't read the NYT story apparently.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

and he didn't criticize Obama , just his off-base interpretation of that case.

Is that thirteen words or fourteen? (LOL, the "fourteen words")
I dunno but the mental contortions required to not burst out laughing are painful, so I'll just burst out laughing AND make that one of my sigs to boot.
Thank you :lamo