Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are people castigating Judge Gorsuch, when he's not the one who wrote the law that said companies can write their own rules and enforce them? And he wasn't the one who wrote the company rule saying drivers must stay with their trucks, with no exceptions made for possibly life-threatening conditions.
Where is any criticism of the people who DID write that rule? And criticism of the people who decided to enforce it and fire the driver, in a situation when the driver simply did what was reasonable and prudent, in the face of a poorly-planned company rule?
All Gorsuch did was establish that the law allowing companies to make their own internal rules, was duly passed by the empowered legislature, violated no other laws, and so couldn't be struck down by the courts. And he established that the company rule about drivers staying with a broken-down rig, was similarly written according to all pertinent laws, and so could not be struck down by a court. And that was all that Gorsuch had the power to do.
The forum liberals are barking up the wrong tree, as usual. But it's not by accident. They are using a correctly-decided case about a poorly (but legally) written rule, to block a judge who might eventually rule from the Supreme Court bench that they themselves are violating the Constitution by making laws that violate the 10th amendment, the Commerce Clause, the Welfare Clause, and a host of other Constitutional commands. And they are trying to pretend that a judge has the power to make exceptions to a duly written law, depending simply on circumstances - something that should have been done by the company officials, not the court.
If judges had the power to make exceptions as they saw fit, depending solely on circumstances, they would be effectively writing (and rewriting) laws from the bench, Sorry, that's the legislature's job. not the courts'. If judges could do that, we wouldn't be living under the Rule of Law, but under the Rule of Men instead. We would be in a dictatorship, with the judges the (mostly unelected) dictators.
Judges have no such power. They must judge ONLY according to what the law says, if it's legal by other laws, etc. Judges can't correct the mistakes of a legislature or company, unless the mistakes actually violate a law (including the Constitution), which this one didn't. It's up to the legislatures (Congress, State Assembly, City Council etc.) to be responsible for writing good laws, and for changing laws if/when they find one is bad.
Gorsuch had no choice but to rule that the company's firing of the truck driver, was legal and broke no rules, poorly written though it was. He knew that all he could do was judge according to what the law said and how it pertained to the case.
Too bad so many forum members here aren't as wise.
I didn't read your whole post, but the fact that people are criticising Gorsuch for his interpretation of the ruling is IMPLICIT that they don't agree with those who wrote the law or rules.
I'm not totally anti-Gorsuch but I do think he missed the mark. Any law (in place, or being put in place) that allows companies to put profits over human safety are bad laws. Even the most profit-driven companies in the world don't do this anymore. Safety-culture enforced by business has led to some positive change. The enforcement of safety laws is one of the main motivators for that change.
Of the decisions that I know of Gorsuch, this is one of the bad ones. Not judging him in his entirety, but I disagree with him on this case. (It implies in no way that anyone else gets a pass).
Why would you think it's OK to interpret laws in a way that allows company profits to trump human life and safety?
...
Why would you think it's OK to interpret laws in a way that allows company profits to trump human life and safety?
What do conservatives care for human life and safety?
They are negotiating a new health care bill even as we speak. Anyone want to guess if the new bill will be any more humane than the last one?
Toxins back in the air and water. How is this safe?
Tellling desperate coal miners and out-of-work factory workers they are going to bring back their low-skilled, decent-paying jobs when you know that ain't happening. How is this humane?
Any judge who rule that a man had to stay and freeze to death because that's the company rules is a company man.
Maddin summed up the ordeal and the legal battle that followed, saying: “I disputed my termination from TransAm Trucking and ultimately won. This was a seven-year battle. Seven different judges heard my case. One of those judges found against me. That judge was Neil Gorsuch.”
Maddin summed up the ordeal and the legal battle that followed, saying: “I disputed my termination from TransAm Trucking and ultimately won. This was a seven-year battle. Seven different judges heard my case. One of those judges found against me. That judge was Neil Gorsuch.”
There are lots of judges who abuse their authority and legislate from the bench by making exceptions where there aren't any. Even on poorly-written rules like this on. That doesn't mean they have that power, only that they don't mind stealing it from the legislature.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
