On the recordApril 4, 2017
My colleague from Illinois brings up the frozen trucker case, as it has often been referred to, and how it demonstrates an effort to really twist the law away from its original purpose in order to find for the powerful over the individual. In this particular case, when he wrote his viewpoint, Neil Gorsuch revealed a whole lot because here was a law specifically crafted to protect truckers from being fired if they operated for personal safety or the safety of the public. Clearly, for him to have driven that trailer down the road, a fully loaded trailer without brakes because the brakes were frozen, would have been incredibly dangerous to all kinds of people. To stay in that cab freezing to death was dangerous to him. You can interpret the concept of operating a truck, and the law said refusing to operate a truck. Well, does refusing to operate a truck mean that you refuse to operate it in exactly the manner that you were told to? Does it mean driving the cab without the trailer or the cab with the trailer? Gorsuch zeroed in on the fact that, well, he did not refuse to operate because he drove the cab. He was operating. Well, no, he was not operating in any common person's understanding. He left the trailer there. He wasn't driving it down the road. But he searched for that slight little way that he could say: Well, that does not quite fit, and therefore I can find for the corporation.…





