Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I wonder if Gorsuch might not say that if I found myself in a spot similar to the trucker's position, nearly out of gas, freezing -- it would be a reasonable decision on my part to take possession of your parked car to go and get help and save myself. But it probably wouldn't be a legal one as I guess I just stole your car.

That's how I read it with my vast experience of only having heard about this case 5 minutes ago on this thread.

As to the guy himself, if I'm a trucking company I hire him immediately for the goodwill with both the public and the other truckers, who I have no doubt all have stories of the callousness and d-ckishness of hauling companies.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

His whole story was b.s., and apparently Gorsuch was the only one willing to see through it. The guy was cold, and he was tired of waiting.

Artist's conception.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

That's how I read it with my vast experience of only having heard about this case 5 minutes ago on this thread.

As to the guy himself, if I'm a trucking company I hire him immediately for the goodwill with both the public and the other truckers, who I have no doubt all have stories of the callousness and d-ckishness of hauling companies.

Trucking companies are very d-ckish, but there must be a reason for it other than just general d-ckishness. I have a brother-in-law who drives for a commercial company in Illinois, oddly enough, and he tells me they are extremely strict regarding the trailers and the loads that are in them. The trailer doors are sealed up using these metal ties. Once he's picked up his trailer, he's not allowed to just swing by his house on the way out of town and pick up something he forgot. They want you going from point A to point B, with no deviation, and be where you're supposed to be when you're supposed to be there, without exception.

He was in an accident once and there were company rules regarding what he could do until the company truck got there to pick up the load.

Personally, I don't know enough about the industry, but having now read about this guy in the Gorsuch case, it doesn't surprise me at all that's the approach the company took. I suspect other trucking companies may have taken a similar approach. I'm going to have to ask my brother-in-law about this case the next time I see him.

 

[joecct]

As I see it, he only owns him partially. Just about the basic interpretation vs. absurd conditions.

What he doesn't point out is the way the law is written that there's an obvious gray area that isn't spelled out correctly. THAT is what I am asking- as a judge, you interpret the language of the law. If the law does not make sense, and how it's written vs. the intent conflicts need to be ironed out. This is an obvious place where Franken could have challenged him on that aspect, which is a HUGE portion of being on the SCOTUS.

It's not just about interpreting the law as written, it's interpreting the correctness of the law. That's is where Franken could have REALLY nailed him.

If a law is badly written whose job is it to correct the flaws? The legislative branch or the judicial branch? Roberts and others seem to opine it is not the courts' job to bail out the legislature.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Trucking companies are very d-ckish, but there must be a reason for it other than just general d-ckishness. I have a brother-in-law who drives for a commercial company in Illinois, oddly enough, and he tells me they are extremely strict regarding the trailers and the loads that are in them. The trailer doors are sealed up using these metal ties. Once he's picked up his trailer, he's not allowed to just swing by his house on the way out of town and pick up something he forgot. They want you going from point A to point B, with no deviation, and be where you're supposed to be when you're supposed to be there, without exception.

He was in an accident once and there were company rules regarding what he could do until the company truck got there to pick up the load.

I understand the need for really tight rules. But I can also understand that when they adjudicated the guy's case they could easily have said, "We sympathize with the difficulty of our driver's situation -- our drivers have very difficult work and we respect their dedicatiblahblahblah... Therefore, our driver will do a refresher course on the importance of compliance with our processes, but we will also review our processes in order to improve conditions for our brave driveblahblahblah..."

My take on this is strongly influenced by my own anecdotal experience with drivers. The outfits seem to belong in the As-shole Hall of Fame, while the drivers I have met have been very good characters, constantly getting jammed by the company's Harvard MBA executives, and of course voting straight ticket Republican and so just f-cking themselves over because CULTURE WARS!!!!

I'm going to have to ask my brother-in-law about this case the next time I see him.

That would be awesome. I'd like to know whether "word on the street" for the drivers is "take this job and shove it" or "that guy deserved what he got."

 

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

If a law is badly written whose job is it to correct the flaws? The legislative branch or the judicial branch? Roberts and others seem to opine it is not the courts' job to bail out the legislature.

So if a law is bad, and not just, the courts can just undo them. Many laws have been over turned.

But if a law is bad, not just, and undoing them makes them less just, courts have no ability to do anything?

SCOTUS has 100% ability to undo bad laws if the solution is just saying the law is not Constitutional, give the rights back. There's a ton of history on that.

But what about situations like this- where the law is bad, but no law is worse? Just live with it?

Theoretically, by forcing the driver to make a choice between life and getting fired and death by following orders (hypothetically- I get Hovey's point that we are not sure), the law does not cover the choice he made, and therefore it's ok to be punished for him exercising is right to choose life. There is a component of the Constitution there.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Theoretically, by forcing the driver to make a choice between life and getting fired and death by following orders

OSHA law does.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

SCOTUS overturns a Gorsuch ruling 8-0 today. Gorsuch apparently isn't a fan of disabled children's rights.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

If a law is badly written whose job is it to correct the flaws? The legislative branch or the judicial branch? Roberts and others seem to opine it is not the courts' job to bail out the legislature.

And I would opine that they are full of it. If we went by those standards the Civil Rights movement probably never happens. If the Leg is making stupid laws and wont fix them the Judicial has every right to fix them.

 

[joecct]

And I would opine that they are full of it. If we went by those standards the Civil Rights movement probably never happens. If the Leg is making stupid laws and wont fix them the Judicial has every right to fix them.

I'm not talking about an unconstitutional law, but a flawed law that is so badly written it has unintended consequences.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I understand the need for really tight rules. But I can also understand that when they adjudicated the guy's case they could easily have said, "We sympathize with the difficulty of our driver's situation -- our drivers have very difficult work and we respect their dedicatiblahblahblah... Therefore, our driver will do a refresher course on the importance of compliance with our processes, but we will also review our processes in order to improve conditions for our brave driveblahblahblah..."

My take on this is strongly influenced by my own anecdotal experience with drivers. The outfits seem to belong in the As-shole Hall of Fame, while the drivers I have met have been very good characters, constantly getting jammed by the company's Harvard MBA executives, and of course voting straight ticket Republican and so just f-cking themselves over because CULTURE WARS!!!!



That would be awesome. I'd like to know whether "word on the street" for the drivers is "take this job and shove it" or "that guy deserved what he got."

I work for a trucking company...trust me the drivers are just as jackwagony...

 

[Handyman]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I'm not talking about an unconstitutional law, but a flawed law that is so badly written it has unintended consequences.

If that flawed law leads to people being put in harms way it is unconstitutional.

 

[joecct]

If that flawed law leads to people being put in harms way it is unconstitutional.

How? A Section / Amendment of the Constitution has to be violated for a law to be unconstitutional.

Stupidity is not unconstitutional.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

How? A Section / Amendment of the Constitution has to be violated for a law to be unconstitutional.

Stupidity is not unconstitutional.

Is there a part of the constitution that is used to outlaw murder? Aka, a right to be living? Or a right to not harm oneself?
(I don't know that part)

 

[unofan]

Is there a part of the constitution that is used to outlaw murder? Aka, a right to be living? Or a right to not harm oneself?
(I don't know that part)

Nope, except as it relates to the government doing the killing. 5th amendment says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government without due process. The corollary is that you can be deprived of those things with due process.

Criminal law is almost always left up to the states. Murder is only a federal crime under certain circumstances, because the federal government doesn't have general police powers.

A general principle to remember is that, with some exceptions, the Constitution applies solely to governments and says what they must, can, and cannot do. It very rarely applies to private individuals.

Gay marriage is legal because the 14th amendment prohibits the government from discriminating when issuing marriage licenses. A private business firing someone who is gay is still legal in many states because they haven't chosen to make such actions illegal.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Given the choice between freezing to death and dragging truck well below the normal lower speed limit (which is normally against the law, too), that's no a reasonable choice. And is an absurd situation, and the law is not adequate to it's intent to not be fired for trying to protect his health and safety.

It sounds like the opinion said that there actually was a third choice: leave the truck intact and get a ride to someplace warm. ("he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate)..."). Not at all saying it was a good choice...

Also, on a side note, I'm not sure which Courts get to rule on the constitutionality of a law, and which ones are limited to interpreting existing law. Our resident experts can weigh in. Not every court can just toss out a law with which they disagree, only courts above a certain level.

 

[burd]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Nope, except as it relates to the government doing the killing. Due process says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The corollary is that you can be deprived of those things with due process.

Criminal law is almost always left up to the states. Murder is only a federal crime under certain circumstances, because the federal government doesn't have general police powers.

A general principle to remember is that, with some exceptions, the Constitution applies solely to governments and says what they must, can, and cannot do. It very rarely applies to private individuals.

Gay marriage is legal because the 14th amendment prohibits the government from discriminating when issuing marriage licenses. A private business firing someone who is gay is still legal in many states because they haven't chosen to make such actions illegal.

Thank you, uno. People often misunderstand the difference between statutory prohibitions affecting individual conduct and constitutional prohibitions and limitations of government action. Just as they misunderstand the role of an appellate court as compared to that of the trial court.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Is there a part of the constitution that is used to outlaw murder? Aka, a right to be living? Or a right to not harm oneself?
(I don't know that part)

State laws can, and generally do, address all these situations. I might well be mistaken, but I thought that the federal government, in theory at least, only had jurisdiction when something crosses state lines.

Also, I thought that states can regulate people while the federal government only regulates behavior. I forget the technical details now; but states can require you to purchase auto insurance liability coverage before getting a state-issued driver's license, while the federal government doesn't (cannot?) regulate driver's license laws at all.

The federal workaround has generally been "states, do what we want, or we restrict federal funding for something you want."

 

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Nope, except as it relates to the government doing the killing. 5th amendment says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the government without due process. The corollary is that you can be deprived of those things with due process.

Criminal law is almost always left up to the states. Murder is only a federal crime under certain circumstances, because the federal government doesn't have general police powers.

A general principle to remember is that, with some exceptions, the Constitution applies solely to governments and says what they must, can, and cannot do. It very rarely applies to private individuals.

Gay marriage is legal because the 14th amendment prohibits the government from discriminating when issuing marriage licenses. A private business firing someone who is gay is still legal in many states because they haven't chosen to make such actions illegal.

Thanks for the clarification.

On a tangent, it also provides no Constitutional protection to unborn fetuses relative to the rights of the mother, but that's a totally different thread.

I'm not talking about an unconstitutional law, but a flawed law that is so badly written it has unintended consequences.

So this is the remaining question. How does the system deal with flawed laws that have unintended consequences? One of which it could harm human life- which is generally protected in each state.

It's interesting that a court can clearly stop a law if they deem it flawed in a manner that it's unconstitutional, but not flawed in any other way. Even when the intent of the law is to provide some protections that are no longer there in circumstances that can be interpreted. And the ambiguous interpretations are even noted in the opinions.

 

[unofan]

It sounds like the opinion said that there actually was a third choice: leave the truck intact and get a ride to someplace warm. ("he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate)..."). Not at all saying it was a good choice...

Also, on a side note, I'm not sure which Courts get to rule on the constitutionality of a law, and which ones are limited to interpreting existing law. Our resident experts can weigh in. Not every court can just toss out a law with which they disagree, only courts above a certain level.

All courts get to rule on constitutionality. All courts get to interpret. A higher court simply trumps a lower court, and lower courts are bound by higher ones if the exact same issue arises.

The exception is state constitutional law. A state Supreme Court trumps all federal courts, including SCOTUS, when a ruling involves only state law.