The Spirit of the Freezing Truck Driver Case Lives On in Justice Neil Gorsuch
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 2 years ago • 56 commentsBy: Charles P. Pierce (Esquire)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Jesus, what a schmuck.
By Charles P. Pierce Jan 18, 2022 PoolGetty Images
Famously, during his contentious confirmation hearings, then-Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch was dogged by then-Senator Al Franken about an opinion that Gorsuch had handed down against a truck driver who had been fired after abandoning his busted truck on a frigid night so he wouldn't freeze to death. The court had decided in favor of the trucker. Gorsuch had dissented. From CNN:
"I don't think you'd want to be on the road with him, would you judge?" Franken asked.
"Senator, um," Gorsuch stammered.
"You would or not? It's a really easy: 'Yes' or 'no?'" he pressed.
Gorsuch dissented in the decision: "It might be fair to ask whether TransAm's decision was a wise or kind one," he wrote. "But it's not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one."
Franken called Gorsuch's logic "absurd."
"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," said the former "Saturday Night Live" star. "Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity, and I know it when I see it and it makes me question your judgment. I would've done exactly what he did, and I think everybody here would've done exactly what he did," Franken said.
Points of law aside, it was impossible to come to any conclusion other than, "Jesus, what a schmuck."
The spirit of the truck-driver case has swirled around the chamber recently. Chief Justice John Roberts has sought to enact COVID protocols, including mask-wearing. There are a number of good and obvious reasons for this, but in particular, it was a concession to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is diabetic and therefore particularly vulnerable to COVID. All the justices have complied. Except one. Let NPR's Nina Totenberg tell you which one.
It was pretty jarring earlier this month when the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court took the bench for the first time since the omicron surge over the holidays. All were now wearing masks. All, that is, except Justice Neil Gorsuch. What's more, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was not there at all, choosing instead to participate through a microphone setup in her chambers…
...Now, though, the situation had changed with the omicron surge, and according to court sources, Sotomayor did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked. Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up. They all did. Except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices' weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.
I'm sure there are some arcane restrictions on the Chief Justice's power to demand compliance from the other justices, probably dating back to the day when Roger Taney showed up in a ball gown or something. But there's something to be said for simplicity, too. I mean, Jesus, what a schmuck.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
It was easy to see years ago that Gorsuch was a smug ahole.
of course, his mommy was a nixonite...
Gorsucks
Too bad it wasn't as easy as seeing how this story is fake--according to at least 3 SCOTUS members.
Curiously, only one person bothered to fact check this story--a Fox reporter who found the truth with JUST a little research.
Just another media hit piece on someone they don't like who is deemed conservative.
SOSDD
Actually the only part of the story that can be considered "fake news" is that Chief Justice John Roberts did not request any Justice to wear masks thus it cannot be said that Gorsuch "refused" to wear one even though it is a fact that he was the only one who chose not to and Sotomayor did choose to stay home due to not all of the justices being masked.
So really like 95% of the story is factual, all the details about the freezing truck driver case are factual, its just that Gorsuch couldn't "refuse" to wear a mask unless he had been asked/ordered to which didn't happen. He didn't wear a mask and Sotomayor is joining remotely, those are all still facts.
Spin it!!
So as a result of this opinion, your agreeing that Gorsuch and Sotomayor are lying in their joint statement refuting the claims made against them?
That would be Shannon Bream. Even Yahoo, NYT, WaPo, and other left-wing outlets finally got around to publishing articles stating that NPR's story was a lie.
Amazingly stupid.
Franken called Gorsuch's logic "absurd.
That's Al Franken. Calling it absurd that a judge would apply the law rather than apply his personal feelings to solve a case.
If the SCOTUS weren't trying so hard to make America into a banana republic, I would have thought that John Roberts would demand that Gorsuch be isolated from the rest of the Justices, instead of Sotomayor.
SCOTUS is certainly not trying to make us into a banana republic, that is just silly.
This "story" has been thoroughly and completely debunked as fake news, so take THAT with a grain of salt when considering the merits of this fake story.
Ahhh, David Gora of NPR is doubling down, calling Gorsuch and Sotomayor liars...
Talk about clueless news media.... Geese Louise!!!!
Seems that one cannot trust the news media for one reason or another no matter WHAT side of the world one is living on these days, eh?
One must be willing to do at least a minimum of personal research before believing everything they read.
Nothing like making shit up to get a story that conforms to one's beliefs.
Although I certainly don't believe everything I read, unfortunately I'm not in as good a situation as you are to do the personal research..
Then perhaps you should wait for more information before passing judgment based on one story that went wholly uncorroborated.
I posted my first comment when there were already a few comments that did not disagree with the story. My next comment was a reply to you that acknowledged that such stories are not always true. That wasn't good enough for you? So what the fuck do you want? I have to wait to see what YOU have to say before I make a comment?
Do whatever you wish.
It matters not to me.
What a dick. I am so sick of assholes.
Are you referring to the author of the fake story?
While posting confirmation this was fake news probably counts as "trolling", I'll take the risk
sounds more like the SC circling the wagons
It's confusing. I see now on Yahoo - that this is not what it seems.
He's still a dick.
Your seeded story is wrong.
Here;
Justice Sotomayor Rules in Favor of Shannon Bream Over NPR’s ‘Fake’ Report on Neil Gorsuch Mask Dispute (msn.com)
Sounds like NPR doubling down on the big lie...
Even CNN, that "bastion of integrity" (yeah, couldn't do that with a straight face) reported on this and said the report was false
Credibility
Not
Necessary
But damn they got one right!!!
Even a blind dog finds a bone every now and then.
Fuck that idiot.
You blame him for being lied about?
Classic.
Another debunked seed.
Anything to criticize a conservative--even when it is a lie, eh?
Harry Reid would be sooo proud!
This seems to be a trend.
Breyer is 83 years old. Thomas is 73. Alito is 71. Sotomayor is 67 and diabetic.
The entire court should be working remotely.
Or---Justices should be appointed and confirmed for eight-year terms with full lifetime benefit for their service.
They were designed as lifetime appointments for a reason. I still believe that's the best design.
A court full of lifetime appointed judges spans the collective wisdom of decades. It's supposed to be the branch of government least subject to political whim.
That's funny. You click the link and this is the title of the actual article.
The Spirit of the Freezing Truck Driver Case Lives On in Justice Neil Gorsuch
Nothing but a hit piece, severely lacking in facts.
So we are talking about a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Franken has a problem with Gorsuch's response of...
So Franken is sideways, because Gorsuch suggests that his role, as an appellate court judge, is to decide if the law was applied correctly, and the case was conducted fairly, according to the rules of procedure and constitution. Let's see what the US Courts of Appeals think their roles are...
How Appellate Courts are Different from Trial Courts
At a trial in a U.S. District Court, witnesses give testimony and a judge or jury decides who is guilty or not guilty — or who is liable or not liable. The appellate courts do not retry cases or hear new evidence. They do not hear witnesses testify. There is no jury. Appellate courts review the procedures and the decisions in the trial court to make sure that the proceedings were fair and that the proper law was applied correctly.
Yes, Al, throw the law to the side, we want our appellate courts not only retrying cases, but issuing fact rulings based on emotion, not the law. Is there a huge sarcasm emoji?
Look, I haven't read the opinions of the case, nor have I seen the briefs. There is way more to that story. What I can't get on board with, is some jackass comedian, turned politician, who throws jabs at an appellate court judge who plainly states what the role of an appellate court judge is. It's not to rehash facts. It's not to be swayed by emotion or impulse. It is to review the process of the lower court, and address the specific issues raised on appeal. Franken, and his kind, don't like that set-up. They want appellate courts to sit as a second, or third, tier trial courts. That's not the function of the appellate courts.
Whatever. The demeanor and philosophy of Gorsuch always reminded me of an American version of Heinrich Heydrich.
How? - explain that comment.
Yeah, I would be interested in this explanation as well... (of course it would be nice if he knew who he was speaking of...Reinhard Heydrich)
Crickets
You are correct. I did mean Reinhard Heydrich. Who was assassinated in the Balkans in 1941.
Gorsuch reminds me of him.
ok, why was the question...
Were you friends with Heydrich?
Are you acquainted with Gorsuch?
Gorsuch, like Heydrich were stalwart supporters of their respective political ideologies.
Heydrich was very smart and driven. Had he not been killed I believe he would have risen in the Nazi ranks to surpass Goring and Himmler.
Nothing in my second sentence would relay anything of that sort to Gorsuch. Gorsuch is and continues to be, a lap dog in service of corporate wealth.
Photos of Heydrich compare aptly with photos of Gorsuch when he was in his twenties.
So, what your saying is he is an ideologue, purely driven by ideology... he doesn't have a single thought of his own... Whatever the ideology says he should believe is what he believes....
Is that essentially it?
Yes.
Well, I guess we agree, there are Supreme Court justices that are driven by nothing but ideology...Sotomayor comes to mind as a good example...
Whatever. Gorsuch is a Corporate Whore.
That is laughable.
Is there some website that produces these whackadoodle statements?
Exactly how familiar are you with Nazis?
More than you will ever be.
I have no doubt about that.
Personally, I learned what I needed to about Nazis somewhere in my early teens, and have decided to distance myself from them as far as possible.
I have never had a desire to be familiar with Nazis. Never will, either.