I'm a truck driver and I absolutely would have bobtailed(drove without trailer) in that situation no matter what the company said. That IGNORANT and SELFISH company should have felt lucky that driver did what he did. Had he died there we'd be looking at a very different situation. One piece of good news here is that many of us professional drivers now know a company to avoid if ever looking to move.
@@ohio But when they are put in the position... Then fail to rise to the occasion... Wouldn't that make you question their ability to separate their own bias from law?
@@venusbloodflow That is exactly what he did. And the facts of the case don't happen to be how Franken presented them. There were many more options for the driver.
@@MrAquinas1 Pfft, yea. None of the justices let their own bias get in the way of their decision making...right?! Maybe you're correct, maybe it's just whatever the pocket liner wants is what they choose.
no way I would vote to approve a man that diverts questions saying they're political. That response could honestly be used for any question.. This guy is SAD
Man, I love this man. I wish like hell they had not woke him out of office. Did he make a mistake? Absolutely.. But was it worthy of getting kicked out? For God's sakes.. Matt Gaetz is still in office.. Jim Jorden is still in office.. WTF? And Gorsuch is so full of feces talking about having to steer clear of politics..
True, these are political appointees. In this case a radical right appointee. It is all political. They became expensive lawyers precisely to advance an agenda.
I think comedy attracts people who make an effort to view subjects from any and all angles and find that sweet spot to put a spotlight on. People who are most successful are good at finding those spots that sometimes aren't so obvious but still end up being relatable. Really does seem like a good skill for that line of work.
Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Jon Stewart, and Trevor Noah, are also comedians upon whom many people came to rely for their view of the increasingly insane world. The keyword is TRUTH.
Franken was obviously an idiot. There were obviously many more options as the people who legitimately fired the idiot truck driver pointed out. He had the option of calling for fist aid, of calling for the police, and he never explained to his dispatcher what his situaltion was. No court had any standing to overrule the trucking company and the idiot and degenerate Franken had no business second guessing them.
I love how Sen. Franken immediately just continues and brushes off when he notices Neil going on his "sympathetic" deflective and "apologetic" responses rather than actually answer the question.
I'd love Franken to run for office, he's blunt, fair, honest and intelligent. I could listen to him all day, learn a lot and get a few good laughs too!
Franken did a good job in trying to illicit a biased response from Gorsuch. He was tasked by the committee to use his brashness to attempt to incite Gorsuch to defend himself in an aggressive manner by Gorsuch easily resisted unlike Kavanaugh. Kudos to both professionals.
After Bork, Supreme Court nominees stopped answering anything about their political views. It is a dodge. Their politics are entirely relevant to their service on the Court. The confirmation process has become an empty exercise that confirms empty suits to rule over our lives.
Mr. Priebus, proved Gorsuch to be a liar, because Gorsuch did reach back 44 years and changed the Roe v Wade law, something Gorsuch claimed that he wasn't going to do.
@@richardholguin2564Roe v Wade was a decision made by the Supreme Court, and was overturned as many other decisions have been. Gorsuch never commented on this issue in a way to assert he would or would not overturn any decision.
I identify as left-of-center; I respect Gorsuch’s legal acumen and his judicial contributions since joining SCOTUS. He’s not some boogieman like many liberals make him out to be. I HATE how unnecessarily politicized the confirmation process has become. I do not doubt that the Founders knew it was impossible to fully quarantine the process from politics, but I cannot imagine they envisioned it would be steeped in such bad faith pettiness and intellectual dishonesty.
Agreed. I have only started studying law, and one thing a student get taught is the literal approach to interpretation, and its exception of aburdity. The senator already mentioned that he is not a lawyer, but he has "paid attention". Yet, he makes the same mistake as L1 students make in relation to what absurd means. It means a result which would be "absurd" as to go against the statute's purpose (in this sense, its literal purpose based on what language was used in the statute). It is not related to the outcome of the case in relation to its moral consequences, it is more to do with what the language of the statue literally say and mean, and how to avoid a complete u-turn from its meaning via the absurdity exception when the necessity does arise. From the facts of the case which the senator mentioned, he pointed out the moral consequence of Gorsuch's minority view, but Gorsuch is not supposed to care about moral consequences IF the literal approach was required. Therefore, being a professional, he had no choice but to follow this approach because as he said, it was pleaded by both sides of the case. It seems that this is law in the US (I study English law) which would force a judge to adopt a literal approach, but nonetheless Amercian and English law are similar when it comes to the literal approach itself (or its equivalent label in America).
I get that perspective, but don’t you think they should have to answer for dumb decisions they may have made on the bench? I mean we are talking about a life-time appointment here, and I believe it is important to question these nominees on those sorts of decisions. For example, don’t you think Amy Comey Barrett should have to answer for her stances on the ACA and Roe v Wade? Obviously, very different circumstances as the Gorsuch hearing, but she has explicitly written about those two subjects intensely, where public opinion does not agree with her at all. I don’t entirely disagree with you about the politicization involved, that is what it is and it’s easy to determine who is at fault in that. But you shouldn’t just cozy up to the nominee and let them through without them answering for things and judgements they have made in my opinion.
Hey Ghostwood you should watch this PBS Frontline documentary, Supreme Revenge. It explains why we got here. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Yt2xUJfdyw.html
It was thorough. Do you think that the American people would be better served if Supreme Court nominees were more open about their political views? They are political appointees.
Boy! Gorsuch sure doesn't want to answer any questions, does he?! I think it is right and proper to ask about his personal views, how else, besides his previous case rulings, are we to judge his character?
I wonder if he would decline to answer if he were asked his opinions about pedophilia or forcible rape. After all the GOP is full of people like Gym Jordan who might feel unfairly criticised by an expression of preemptive judgement against these practices.
It doesn't matter what Gorsuch would have done; that's not the question a judge is required to ask themselves in making a judgement. It's what the law permits and does not permit, not what the judge thinks about an individual's situation or motivations. The law doesn't allow for variation based individual circumstances.
Franken, like many Democrats, doesn't care about what the law says. They care about the results. The reality is that the justices must decide what the law says. The legislators are the ones who should write good laws.
Franken was absolutely right to call out Gorsuch on his application of the Plain Meaning rule without consideration to the Doctrine of Absurdity, in a case in which it was absolutely clear from the facts presented that the truck driver had been put into an absurd situation and should not have been fired for possibly saving his own life in the safest way possible. Gorsuch basically denied that the Doctrine of absurdity exists, and in doing so revealed his true character, that despite his claim of “empathizing” with the driver, Gorsuch in fact had none.
Franken's entire line of questioning, is about as sound as his classifying the judge as a "political activist in Ohio", because the 9 yr old Gorsuch passed out flyers for his mother's campaign...
this is so frustrating to watch does anyone working under trump know how to answer a question in a straightforward manner? there should be a drinking game where you take a shit every time he says he cant share his opinion
I really like Al Fraken, but in this case, he seemed to be wanting to draw out how Judge Gorsuch feels about scenarios or how he might approach scenarios if they were litigated before him. The reality is that despite any concern about how a judge's personal feelings might influence his or her decisions, it would be inappropriate for him to convey that. If he did, I would think any answer he gave would indicate a lack of fairness, or it would indicate an inability to make unbiased judgments. And in terms of how he might approach scenarios not yet before him, the answer should be that he would approach them based on the law, regardless of what nice things Conservatives might say about him or the President who appointed him.
Despite what the opinions are on BOTH sides, I find it admirable that Gorsuch can remain true to his judicial ethic during questioning. I believe he will be seated at SCOTUS!
lynda s moot point unless you're points that being in the presidential office automatically bestows the likes of goodness, logic, intellect, honesty etc...of course it doesn't. ...let alone the lack of these basics by those he keeps close and whose opinions he considers.
@@DrtyMikeNDaBoyz Robert Bork was an intellectual prostitute but at least he was honest. And ten times better the last three hacks impose by the Republican Kakatocracy.
@@simplypursuant9592 what makes you think I don’t know about law? First year law- constitutional law- hence why she should recite that shit like the ABC’s, cause you hear it like an anthem for a damn year!
Take a look at how he guffaws at his own joke, and grins like a mule eating briars at 0:10, and the smile disappears when he hears "Trans Am Trucking".
The most hilarious part... Gorsuch: makes an intellectual response Franken: listen here buddy I got a pamphlet Gorsuch: wow...just...wow this is the test I must pass
Warren Pricefield I’m baffled how you think that this individuals comment upon a particular segment of this video is his summarization of what he took from this video. You seriously need to look at your reading comprehension and evaluate what you can do to improve upon such a basic human function. Are you high or just stupid?
He needs a lesson in mechanics. If the air lines are froze, he has more than one problem.If the brakes are locked he cannot move it.Wake up and smell the coffee.If the air lines are frozen there is water or moisture in the brake system.This situation is totally unrealistic.
This comment is 4 years old, so I won't waste my time with detail unless someone asks. Ken, it is you who has a lot to learn. I'd bet no more than 1 of the persons who gave you the 8 likes was an experienced truck driver 4 years ago, probably zero. My 8 years of experience says you're reading the situation wrong. More importantly, you are ignoring the most important point. No matter the knowledge or experience of the driver in question, SAFETY MUST COME FIRST!!!
@@OpinionatedBastage Indeed! The fact that the tractor's heater was not working when it was idling and that it was minus 14 degrees out and the driver was experiencing symptoms of hypothermia, as his feet, hands, and torso were beginning to get numb, the phone call that woke the driver up, probably saved his life. The driver was able to drop the trailer and get to a safe haven where he got warm & began to reverse the effects of hypothermia. The driver made the correct decision in a life & death situation. Most dispatchers/supervisors are only concerned about deliveries & pickups being made on time. They don't seem to care if the driver is driving an unsafe tractor-trailer. I've experienced that at large & small trucking companies over the years. In the final analysis, it is the driver's responsibility to make sure the tractor-trailer is safe to operate and that they're healthy and able to drive safely. The days of driving 36 hours straight without any rest are long gone.
@@ohio Judge Gorsuch admitted that he used the plain meaning rule to make his decision on this case. The plain meaning rule has an exception. When using the plain meaning rule would create an absurd result, courts should depart from the plain meaning rule. The other six judges voted in favor of the Truck Driver in this case. The plain meaning of a statue controlls "unless this leads to an unreasonable result contrary to legislative intent." This case was the perfect one to apply the "exception" to the plain meaning rule." Gorsuch chose not to apply the "exception" in this life & death situation. We know that Gorsuch is "Pro-Life" when it comes to abortion, but not Pro-All-Life when it comes to his fellow human beings, as proven in this case.
13:35 - "...and why I can't even attend a political caucus in my home state..." He says, a year or so before actively campaigning for Republicans in the midterms. There are no Republicans who aren't overt liars and massive hypocrites.
@@britainreynolds7365 Actually, protecting the citizens of this country from the bad acts of a corporation is exactly what the courts are for, including the Supremes. And normally, I would agree that a party's agenda isn't the business of a SC justice, but the 6 conservatives in the present court are obliterating that boundary.
@@tedwilsonjr Couldn't have a more wrong take. Find me even one historical example that suggests anyone ever thought that was the role of SCOTUS. These 6 justices are restoring the consitutional norms.
The argument put forward is, the driver has hypothermia and it wasn't safe to drive as his ability to react was impaired. Yet somehow, the removal of the trailer was able to change this medical condition, making it safe for him to drive. What?
You've obviously misstated the argument & have no understanding about tractor trailers. The trailer's brakes were frozen and it was minus 14 degrees out. The driver was beginning to experience negative effects from the extreme cold, and despite waiting a reasonable amount of time for mechanical help to arrive, he was put in a position where he would've froze to death, if he did nothing and stayed with the tractor hooked up to the truck. The driver unhooked (dropped)the trailer and bobtailed with the tractor for 15 minutes to get warm and to counter attack the negative effects of the cold on his health. The only safety concerns were (1) The trailer's frozen air brakes. (2) The driver's health & life if he didn't get warm, he could've died from hypothermia. The driver had to make a decision based on survival. Trucking Managers/ Dispatchers could care less about their drivers, they're only concerned that the delivery or pickup is made on time. In the final analysis, it's up to the driver to make the correct decisions concerning the safety of their tractor-trailers and their own health & well being.
@@richardmilliken8705 I drove my own trucks for years. You can run the engine and heater while stationary. You do not need to drive the truck on the road to run the heater.
@@thefletchlife7837 I've driven hundreds of tractors over the past 45 years and some of them had heaters that weren't activated, while the truck was idling. What we know is that the heater was not working while the truck was idling & the driver was beginning to suffer hypothermia symptoms. So by dropping the trailer and bobtailing, either the tractor's heater was activated while driving the tractor or the driver found a safe haven & he was able to get warm. Either way, the driver's decision to drop the trailer and get warm, saved his life. There is an exception to the plain meaning rule, and that's when it creates an absurd result & that's when courts should depart from the plain meaning. If the tractor's heater was working while it was idling, the driver would've been warm & not suffering from hypothermia.
@@richardmilliken8705 must be different from Australian trucks mate. The heaters here run from engine temp via a heat exchange (radiator water/coolant). If the engine is running, the heater works.
@@lynnetoepfer8377 Trump is not a corporate man whatsoever let's not forget he's lost money but everything he has tried to open he's declared bankruptcy three times and he can't even run a casino in the casino always wins but not him besides he doesn't pay any taxes the hell
How prescient Senator Franken was when he called out then candidate Gorsuch potential to change 40 yrs of law... the reference was of course things like Roe...and further deconstruction. And we all know how that turned out.
And despite how many will think that’s deflection, Gorsuch is 100% correct. The Rules of Professional Conduct has many provisions barring not only a judge’s ability to establish a political bias, but even creating a *reasonable appearance* of impartiality. Additionally, Judges cannot issue advisory opinions.
@@ghostwood9174 That rule should not apply to nominees for the highest court of the land. The American people deserve to know who is being nominated and what they will do.
@@tyler843 When they become a justice yes. But before they become a justice they go through a process so that the American people and the Senators they elected know what they would do as a justice. And a basic understanding of their views is necessary.
@@tyler843 And the American people deserve to know the exact approach that justice will take in upholding it. To know that, a basic knowledge of their views is necessary.
Once again, its Al Franken dying on stage. He's fishing so hard for some semantic slipup its almost pathetic to see a grown man sink so low. This is what it looks like when you're rifle is out of ammo and you're throwing empty shells at the deer.
Franken is the stereotypical liberal. There's a big difference between someone who is political when they are not a judge. Franken is asking lots of questions he knows the nominee can't answer, so he looks evasive. He is exactly what is wrong with our political system.
It's interesting to watch this knowing that Gorsuch would go to write the opinion in Bostock v Clayton. In the trucker case, Gorsuch demonstrated that his threshold for "absurdity" is higher than most. His decision in Bostock demonstrates the exact same thing. Though, of course, Franken would not have taken issue with the result in that case.
saying he won't speak on it Garland bc it would be considered partisan, is itself partisan. A nonpartisan would say such a thing isn't normal and has neg/pos effect on the system- I'm a republican and even I. Know stealing that seat wasn't right and will come back to haunt. Calling out the bullshit isn't partisan, but calling out the ones calling them out is.
in the future if you are In this type of situation And you are freezing Just call 911 And have A ambulance take you to the Hospital thats it case closed
The hypocrisy of Republicans never ends. When the judge says he empathize with the truck driver but not as much as the company who was losing money because the truck driver put his life over corporate profits. What a bunch of thugs. . I WISH AL WAS STILL IN THE SENATE..
Republicans have a different perspective. Money and Corporate profits are outweigh anything else.🤮 Gorsuch’s refusal to answer the question regarding Garland is thoroughly political. Hypocrisy is not a good quality for a judge.
So you are saying the man letting himself die of hypothermia instead of savings himself is not absurd? You think punishing a man for not letting himself die is correct?
Because the left sees the supreme court as a way to push their agenda and use it to fight for humanitarian rights where the supreme court is only supposed to interpret law, not make laws.
Maybe Franken should replace Thomas on SCOTUS - nothing says a SCOTUS justice needs to be a lawyer or have prior judicial experience. Franken’s common sense speaks volumes.
