Gorsuch defended his dissent in what has become known as the “frozen trucker” case, an opinion that Gorush critics have pointed to as proof that the judge has a tendency to prioritize the interests of CEOs over the working class, but also one that has brought Gorsuch praise from those who support his approach the law.
Gorsuch said at his confirmation hearing Tuesday that his opinion may have been an “unkind” one, but that it got at “what my job is, and what it isn’t.”
The case, which came before Gorsuch as a member of a three-judge appeals panel, concerned a trucker who had been fired from his job because he had unhooked and left his trailer on the side of the road after its brakes had become frozen. A dispatcher had told him to stay with the trailer until a repairman arrived, but in his unheated truck cab in the below-freezing temperatures the trucker became numb and feared for his safety. Gorsuch had disagreed with the rest of panel, which ruled that the trucker was protected by a law the bars truck companies from firing drivers who refuse to operate their vehicles out of fears for their safety.
“The law as written said that he would be protected if he refused to operate and I think by any plain understanding he operated the vehicle,” Gorsuch said Tuesday, when asked about the case. “My job isn’t to write the law, Senator. It is to apply the law. And if Congress passes the law saying a trucker in those circumstances gets to choose how to operate his vehicle, I will be the first one in line to enforce it. “
This is a person who has never worked a day in his life. He is on the side of the bosses.
We know what this guy’s position about sleeping under bridges would be, that’s for sure.
Having operated vehicles that shouldn’t have been anywhere near the road, I can say that Goresuck is full of shit. Hazard to the human should always take precedence over the inconvenience to The Company.
My job isn’t to write the law, Senator. It is to apply the law. And if Congress passes the law saying a trucker in those circumstances gets to choose how to operate his vehicle, I will be the first one in line to enforce it. "
Um, except there WAS a law that said the trucker had discretion in how to operate his vehicle when it came to safety – that was the whole point of the case. Just more double-speak gibberish from this ideological asshole.
I just read the case. Scalia would be proud of that dissent.
Gorsuch is the one who strains for the desired result.
He had to disregard both the ALJ and the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board, which said the statutory phrase “operate a vehicle” was broad enough to include what this driver refused to do – in a situation where the judge’s duty is to defer if at all possible to the agency’s construction of the statute.
He went straight to the dictionary. He decided for himself that the word “operate” could only mean “drive.” He ignored the question of whether the word “vehicle” meant (1) just the cab or (2) the cab with the trailer. He said the law couldn’t possibly protect drivers who wanted to operate their vehicles safely even if it meant disobeying instructions – even though that’s exactly what the ARB said it meant. Therefore, he said, Congress had not intended to protect the driver’s right to save his own life after he was ordered to stay in the freezing cab without leaving the disabled trailer.
It’s worse than “unkind” – it’s unprincipled. Well, unless you count “company wins, employee loses” as a principle.