|
|
|
|
||
Re: Gorsuch on tyranny I have to disagree, VG, with your (and Gorsuch's) ruling in this matter. What he used (and what you are also agreeing with) is this (quoted from hearing transcripts): "What you’re [Gorsuch is] talking about here is the plain meaning rule. Here is what the rule means. When the plain meaning of a statute is clear on its face, when its meaning is obvious, courts have no business looking beyond the meaning to the statute’s purpose. And that’s what you used, right?" Gorsuch agreed that that was what was argued. “But 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. 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. That’s absurd.” Note that Gorsuch was the only judge to rule the way he did. I do note that: Later in his testimony, Gorsuch argued that this exception to the plain meaning rule should not apply in Maddin’s case. Nevertheless, there are other reasons why Gorsuch could have sided with Maddin. As the two other appeals court judges hearing this case noted, a federal agency read the word “operate” in this law more broadly than Gorsuch, and Supreme Court precedent calls upon judges to be deferential to agencies in these contexts. Additionally, as Fordham law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman notes, the law could also be read to allow Maddin to refuse to operate the truck while the trailer with the frozen brakes was attached. In this case, I believe that the "plain meaning" interpretation was incorrectly applied. Just IMO. Cheers. |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
119894 | Re: Gorsuch on tyranny | valuationguy | 1 | 3/24/2017 8:50:27 AM |