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.
@ᴠᴇɴᴜs ʙʟᴏᴏᴅғʟᴏᴡ 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.
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.
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.
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.
Hope he comes back. What he did was bad, but it happened years ago, and he seemed legitimately apologetic about it. Do we want to be a society that allows redemption?
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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".
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 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.
@@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.
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?
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...
Al, I nominate you as the Best Ex-Senator ever, for how many of us you have helped with your podcasts and videos. I nominate TFG as Worst Ex-President ever, for continuing to attack our democracy. Sen. Byrd gets my nomination for words ex-Senator. Best Ex-President goes to the guy whose middle name was Earl. Do I hear any “seconds” to any of these nominations?
I agree jimmy earl carter is a great ex-president and al is a great ex-senator. I'm disappointed that Obama has not done much, but realize that he doesn't want to overshadow biden.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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
@@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!
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.
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?
7 років тому+4
Dragonaut111 I understand you want to uphold the "law" or whatever, but how do you FEEL?
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.
13:23 - Gorsuch explained the stance he lives by in a few seconds and then allowed Franken to chase his own tail for half an hour. I wonder if the liberals could pick out which one between them was fishing for dirt and which one was frustrated because of his failure.
He made a very good point! Gorsuch is for business to the point of letting this man's firing be upheld by the court, when if he had continued to wait, it could have killed him or cost him limbs or digits.
Ivory sorry but your interpretation couldn't be further from the truth. Gorsuch was able frustrate Democrat after Democrat who would stop at nothing to find something controversial, and he did it by following the letter of the law. He is absolutely SCOTUS material.
You're right - that clip shows Gorsuch clearly to be a corporate puppet and not for the people. The people should be outraged at his nomination because he does not interpret the Constitution in favor of the safety and well-being of its people. The letter of the law in this case has nothing to do with it because you could've gone in favor of the corporation or the person. Six other judges went for the person, Gorsuch went for the corporation. This is not dirt. That implies digging is necessary (news flash: you don't fish for dirt). This is in plain sight and Franken really didn't have to do anything to reveal it except explain what happened and let Gorsuch sit there, with his faux personality and demeanor, give his non-answers.
I think many of you here fail to remember what the role of a Supreme Court Justice is. It hardly has a thing to do with one's personal opinions, but only with LAWS. And don't dare pretend that you understand the law better that Gorsuch does. Are you kidding me?
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.
@Marie Gamalski I wonder what your thought on this is now. He recently wrote the majority opinion on Bostock v. Clayton County to allow sexual orientation and gender identity to be part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from the living their lives without having the scrutiny of what they do in their most private times leading to a lawful termination of their jobs. Neil Gorsuch has been mostly an outstanding justice; this is coming from a die-hard Berner. He is among the least partisan justices we have seen in the past fifty years in the Court. So, please, have you changed your mind? Gorsuch also joined the 4 liberals to protect Native Americans THREE TIMES. Three separate times he went against what you expect him to be and stood up for the weak through a genius textualist approach that I don't think even Scalia would be able to legitimately contest.
@Marie Gamalski You clearly don't understand English. When I say even Scalia wouldn't be able to contest, I am saying that I believe Scalia--despite being in the same interpretative school of judicial thought as Gorsuch--wouldn't be able to say much to Gorsuch's decisions on the Bostock case. Obviously, Scalia is among the most conservative justices we've had. I don't think he's the worst jurist of the 20th century. Alito is far worse. McReynolds was literally an anti-semite who would refuse to be in the same room as Brandeis simply due to the fact that he's a jew. You're saying Scalia is worse than the most racist, anti-semetic, lazy, incompetent justice we've ever seen? You clearly don't understand the history of the Court, nor do you understand the difference between being conservative judicially and being conservative politically.
@Marie Gamalski What the fuck are you even talking about? We went from talking about Gorsuch to you implying that I'm defending fucking Reagan and Barr? WTF? Your hatred towards the Republican Party and their egregious actions in the Senate is completely agreeable. To deny those fuckups would be admitting that I'm blind. They didn't even interview Obama's several SCOTUS nominations and waited until Trump won to put in Trump's TWO nominations in just TWO years. Of course that's fucking disgusting! But I'm talking about ONE of those justices, Justice Gorsuch, and how he has defied our expectations. He was expected to be extremely conservative, and most feared he would just be another Scalia since he IS a textualist. But his majority opinions on the landmark cases that were brought before the SCOTUS shows that he is not as partisan as we thought, and that he understands the difference his role as a SCTOUS justice very well. He utilized his textualist approach to interpret the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity through the term "sex." He's using a method that many progressives believe is outdated to result in the advancement of rights for LGBTQ people. I've listened to the entire audio of the Bostock case and read the majority opinions of several other Native American cases that Gorusch wrote. He is exactly the opposite of what you fear would happen, and that's why I'm glad he's there. Kavanaugh is another story. He, along with Sotomayor--yes I said it--need to wake the fuck up. They are blinded by partisan ideology to the point of being unable to execute their duties as JUSTICES. Idk why the fuck you'd bring up Barr... you're high as balls. Gorsuch has turned out to rule in ways that benefit progressives, yet people like you still call him corrupt... because Barr didn't get sentenced? lmao wtf
@Marie Gamalski You are so unwilling to see people for their individual contributions and instead venture on to mask them under an entire umbrella of a party ideology. Your logic of hating on Gorsuch is... because Barr is corrupt?
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.
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..
"Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a longer (33-page) concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretative rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.” He sought to downplay the impact of Friday’s ruling, contending that “all today’s decision means is that, going forward, federal courts will do exactly as this Court has since 2016, exactly as it did before the mid-1980s, and exactly as it had done since the founding: resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government’s favor.”
I kind of felt bad for Franken.. He had no idea what he was walking into and got completely destroyed by an honest, well educated, sincere person. It made him look like a fool seeking gotcha points and completely backfired
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.
@ᴠᴇɴᴜs ʙʟᴏᴏᴅғʟᴏᴡ 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.
@@ohio A company can't ask you to commit suicide.
@@MrAquinas1 Such as?
@@MrAquinas1 Surely the company was WRONG to fire the guy. What should the driver have done? Please detail the other options he had.
@@ohio If the policy is illegal then the company cannot enforce it. Companies can't insist their employees commit suicide for them.
A freezing man should not be fired for staying alive! Period.
Franken’s only training was playing a lawyer in a SNL skit. I wish he were my lawyer!
He may not be a lawyer, but Franken is a Harvard graduate and alumnus of the Kennedy School of Government.
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.
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.
True
None of those Republicans you mentioned attacked women, and you know it. Al Franken assaulted at least 8 women.
How do up you defend a man like this? He had at least 8 victims come forward. He probably learned from Harvey Weisnstein.
@@BusterMSC1 Huh... Never seen someone actually pull facts out of their ass..Oh, right, these aren't facts just BS..
The Senate lost greatly at Franken's leaving. The wrong people are still there.
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.
U can say that again!
I disagree. Al resigned in disgrace
FU
@@johnnysokko102 Al Franken assaulted at least 8 women
Need to get this guy back in office
Is America a country of systemic racism? Al believes that.
You bet.
So much for me too I guess…
Hope he comes back. What he did was bad, but it happened years ago, and he seemed legitimately apologetic about it. Do we want to be a society that allows redemption?
Franken is 100% Right.
Not only you question his judgement, the rest of us are , what happened to common sense…….🙄
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.
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
God DAMN I love this guy. don't lie to him. he WILL fuck you up!
He never should have allowed them to force him out of the Senate. Gorsuch should NEVER have been allowed on SCOTUS.
The fix was in. Gorsuch knew he was going to be placed on the court. He was going throught the motions here.
I can't tell you how much I miss Senator Franken and how much I hate what they did to him...especially Gillibrand.
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.
Please run again, Al Franken!
Even as a conservative, you really have to appreciate Franken's work here.
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.
Looking for a “lifetime” job!I absolutely agree Sen Franklen should still in the Senate!!
A non lawyer making a fool of himself trying to argue law with a judge.
🤭
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.
Precisely, prior to Bork, the hearings gave Americans a way to understand the direction of the country. Now it is an empty exercise.
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!
He was a senator for almost 10 years until a scandal forced him to resign.
Love you Al. We need you. Women need you in government.
Wow just love the look on Gorsuch face at 15:06 it says it all LOL
lmao
I know Devizia, I'd love to see his mama slap that smirk off his face
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".
That was outstanding.
Frankin needs to be drained from the swamp. He is a mud dweller.
Got em
Marie Gamalski left wing or right wing, it’s on the same bird. Bunch of snakes and piss soaked rats.
Franken's frustration is palpable.
Bullshit
Al Franken should be nominated to SCOTUS... A far better and much more intelligent individual than any of the present members of the court...
Al Franken "Giant of the Senate!"
Can you imagine, if Paul Wellstone hadn’t been “taken out of the game”, what the 2 of them together could have done?
I had no idea Al Franken was so freaking awesome in the Senate! He was! Impressive
Bring Al Frankenstein back! He was fantastic!
Where is Al Franken when you need him? Run for Senator again.
Please do more judges like this. ..especially in the disability field....like ssi
Watching this, it’s plainly obvious why Franken was set up; he was far too effective at questioning.
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.
Gorsuch humiliated Franken. Franken humiliated Franken.
Franken doesn’t understand that judges have to make their rulings on written laws not personal morals.
@@costco_pizza
I don't understand why they appointed one to the supreme court.
I didn't see where Gorsuch humiliated Franken.
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.
The beginning was really confusing without context 😂😂
i honestly thought it was the set up for a long joke at first
Supreme Court nominees refuse to answer hypothetical questions yet that's the job they are going to all day long...
They refuse to answer hypotheticals on situations that may come before them. See Robert Bork as to why they do that.
@@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.
Can’t believe we gave this guy a seat on the Supreme Court..
It was the racist GOP who put the "paid for" Federalist Society puppets on the Supreme Court!!!
"When there's a scridner there?"
"A *'scrivener's error'*"
"Oh." Lmao
Gorsuch looks at him like, "I can't believe how dumb you are!"
Scribner ... I think is the correct term.
Scrivener
@@chris2423 they're literally both correct
Scrivener as in SCRIBE I do believe
What happened to freaking common sense. It is absurd...
I'm so glad Franken is gone. What a clown.
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
Zoom Wayne I know it’s a year after this comment. But I am just baffled that that is what you got from this video
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?
@@OhItsDJ
I think you should ask yourself your question.
@@OhItsDJ idiot
This guy’s chilling demeanor should have disqualified him outright. Patrick Bateman vibes!
Wtf really this is just way outside of the scope of reality!
Please please please people VOTE!!!
VOTE
VOTE !!!
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...
Why Franken is not still a Senator is a national tragedy....!
Regardless of political view, that was at times just painfull to watch
Goresuck would just speed away in his Mercedes silly Al!!
Look even some dems agree Gorsuch is incredibly qualified, stop with the trying to caricature every conservative as 'evil'.
They make it too damn easy. And today it's not a caricature, they are evil.
I miss this guy.
Did he grab your chest?
@@martthesling nope. He didn't w Roger Stone's friend either(:
@@mollyshredder Maybe your boobs aren't as squeezable as the ones Al Franken grabbed.
Al was right all the way...
Al, I nominate you as the Best Ex-Senator ever, for how many of us you have helped with your podcasts and videos.
I nominate TFG as Worst Ex-President ever, for continuing to attack our democracy.
Sen. Byrd gets my nomination for words ex-Senator.
Best Ex-President goes to the guy whose middle name was Earl.
Do I hear any “seconds” to any of these nominations?
I agree jimmy earl carter is a great ex-president and al is a great ex-senator. I'm disappointed that Obama has not done much, but realize that he doesn't want to overshadow biden.
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.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/1Yt2xUJfdyw/v-deo.html
I doubt the Founders ever thought a Woman or Minority would ever be on the SCOTUS !
Most liberals expected another Scalia or Thomas. I reality they got another Roberts or Kennedy.
for a party that claims to be all about job creation, these guys sure don't seem to concern themselves with job protection
0p
That's congress' job, not scotus
@@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.
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.
How else could he be vetted for the job?
Christopher Moore Just like any other job: By his record and qualifications, not his personal opinions.
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.
Christopher Moore I only disagree bc you don't want someone who thinks irrationally to be in charge of making decisions.
Thank God for Al Franken. Without him, nobody would know how great and solid Neil Gorsuch is.
Yes, how great of a corporate yes-man he is!
Franken is a dope head womanizer. I wouldn’t trust him. Coke Head.
@@65TossTrap ummmmm sounds like trump not Mr Franken
Franken is clearly an absurdity.
@@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
Pease run for senior again, we need you to call these people up.
I'm by no means partisan, but that was a pretty devastating "exchange".
What does THAT mean???
@@danallyn7Ol’ Nigel got his ass kicked
I’d expect brighter justices.
I'm smug enough, I virtue signal enough, and gosh darn it, people vote for me
Excellent!
They say Gorsuch was hostile, but he seemed like he was defending himself.
How I miss Al Franken.
Another liar on the supreme court.
Why do they let non-lawyers on the judiciary committee
For the same reason that a reality television person became president. Lol
@@nolannolan7323 low iq moment ,anyone can become president, or in theory bud.
@@simplypursuant9592 Yes Sir, so can Senators. So what’s your point?
@@nolannolan7323 if you don't know much about law why do you question a judge on law
@@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!
Al Franken for president 2024
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.
I love Al Franken, but I hate him for not letting Gorsuch finish even one sentence.
"You sound like my daughters" lmaoo , got em
You can tell that he was under the influence the way he slurs his words.
I’m very much of a liberal but I think Franken is a bit crazy...
When the biggest creep of all is the president? Please...
Trump is certainly the biggest creep ever. He creeps his own daughter
I love AL Franken ❤️ ❤
Franken talks way too much, let Gorsuch speak man...
Gorsuch was following the law, his emotions or empathy are irrelevent to following the rule of law why don't these people understand that?
Dragonaut111
The law is not a computer program. If you ever find yourself in front of a judge you will be thankful for that
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?
Dragonaut111 I understand you want to uphold the "law" or whatever, but how do you FEEL?
Dragonaut111 the law ruled against gosuck.
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.
I miss you terribly Al, no BS-in such a BS bubble
I miss his unwanted touching and kissing of women and the sexual harassment in general. Miss you big guy.
@@vicariousjohnson9823
If the left does it then it never happened. Just like with Biden…
So are we talking about Trump or Al? Maybe Al should run for POTUS.
@@mrvlsmrv Biden
@@1223steffen Biden already is POTUS. So you want him to run again then. I'm sure he'll appreciate your support.
This is why the #GOP went after Senator Franklin first thing.
No
13:23 - Gorsuch explained the stance he lives by in a few seconds and then allowed Franken to chase his own tail for half an hour. I wonder if the liberals could pick out which one between them was fishing for dirt and which one was frustrated because of his failure.
He made a very good point! Gorsuch is for business to the point of letting this man's firing be upheld by the court, when if he had continued to wait, it could have killed him or cost him limbs or digits.
Nemo Smith he is simple minded and shallow as his response shows.
Ivory sorry but your interpretation couldn't be further from the truth. Gorsuch was able frustrate Democrat after Democrat who would stop at nothing to find something controversial, and he did it by following the letter of the law. He is absolutely SCOTUS material.
You're right - that clip shows Gorsuch clearly to be a corporate puppet and not for the people. The people should be outraged at his nomination because he does not interpret the Constitution in favor of the safety and well-being of its people. The letter of the law in this case has nothing to do with it because you could've gone in favor of the corporation or the person. Six other judges went for the person, Gorsuch went for the corporation.
This is not dirt. That implies digging is necessary (news flash: you don't fish for dirt). This is in plain sight and Franken really didn't have to do anything to reveal it except explain what happened and let Gorsuch sit there, with his faux personality and demeanor, give his non-answers.
I think many of you here fail to remember what the role of a Supreme Court Justice is. It hardly has a thing to do with one's personal opinions, but only with LAWS. And don't dare pretend that you understand the law better that Gorsuch does. Are you kidding me?
you know when shit storm coming your way and you cant do nothing but take a sip of water lol lol
"I don't mean to cut you off but we don't have time" , however I can go on and on and on about absolutely nothing.
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.
Gorsuch will be a good pick.
@Marie Gamalski I wonder what your thought on this is now. He recently wrote the majority opinion on Bostock v. Clayton County to allow sexual orientation and gender identity to be part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from the living their lives without having the scrutiny of what they do in their most private times leading to a lawful termination of their jobs. Neil Gorsuch has been mostly an outstanding justice; this is coming from a die-hard Berner. He is among the least partisan justices we have seen in the past fifty years in the Court. So, please, have you changed your mind?
Gorsuch also joined the 4 liberals to protect Native Americans THREE TIMES. Three separate times he went against what you expect him to be and stood up for the weak through a genius textualist approach that I don't think even Scalia would be able to legitimately contest.
@Marie Gamalski So, you're unwilling to judge a Justice by their judicial record? I don't even think you read my entire comment.
@Marie Gamalski You clearly don't understand English. When I say even Scalia wouldn't be able to contest, I am saying that I believe Scalia--despite being in the same interpretative school of judicial thought as Gorsuch--wouldn't be able to say much to Gorsuch's decisions on the Bostock case. Obviously, Scalia is among the most conservative justices we've had. I don't think he's the worst jurist of the 20th century. Alito is far worse. McReynolds was literally an anti-semite who would refuse to be in the same room as Brandeis simply due to the fact that he's a jew. You're saying Scalia is worse than the most racist, anti-semetic, lazy, incompetent justice we've ever seen? You clearly don't understand the history of the Court, nor do you understand the difference between being conservative judicially and being conservative politically.
@Marie Gamalski What the fuck are you even talking about? We went from talking about Gorsuch to you implying that I'm defending fucking Reagan and Barr? WTF? Your hatred towards the Republican Party and their egregious actions in the Senate is completely agreeable. To deny those fuckups would be admitting that I'm blind. They didn't even interview Obama's several SCOTUS nominations and waited until Trump won to put in Trump's TWO nominations in just TWO years. Of course that's fucking disgusting! But I'm talking about ONE of those justices, Justice Gorsuch, and how he has defied our expectations. He was expected to be extremely conservative, and most feared he would just be another Scalia since he IS a textualist. But his majority opinions on the landmark cases that were brought before the SCOTUS shows that he is not as partisan as we thought, and that he understands the difference his role as a SCTOUS justice very well. He utilized his textualist approach to interpret the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity through the term "sex." He's using a method that many progressives believe is outdated to result in the advancement of rights for LGBTQ people. I've listened to the entire audio of the Bostock case and read the majority opinions of several other Native American cases that Gorusch wrote. He is exactly the opposite of what you fear would happen, and that's why I'm glad he's there. Kavanaugh is another story. He, along with Sotomayor--yes I said it--need to wake the fuck up. They are blinded by partisan ideology to the point of being unable to execute their duties as JUSTICES. Idk why the fuck you'd bring up Barr... you're high as balls. Gorsuch has turned out to rule in ways that benefit progressives, yet people like you still call him corrupt... because Barr didn't get sentenced? lmao wtf
@Marie Gamalski You are so unwilling to see people for their individual contributions and instead venture on to mask them under an entire umbrella of a party ideology. Your logic of hating on Gorsuch is... because Barr is corrupt?
Mr Franken. Can you please run for president in 2024. I know you have many that respect and admire you . I being one in those. Thank you
This NEVER gets old...it’s even better after Al’s departure and Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Neil Gorsuch was and still is an unabashed political activist for the extreme conservative right of the political spectrum...
14:00 minutes in and wham there it is.
Just finished my popcorn and soda pop. Wiped my mouth. This was interesting, entertaining and quite disturbing that Gorsuch was confirmed.
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.
@23:15
He literally says Im here to answer your questions best I can -- instead of answering the question that was asked....lmao
Love at 12:48 the little grin on Gorsuch's face..."Aw, you have a little law book there! Adorable."
lmao
How does it feel that a former comedian gets to eat this guy's lunch??
"That's Absurd! and now I have a career in identifying absurdity" best word everXD
julianto triwijaya Is groping women absurd?
Trump is absurd, so does that answer your question? Or maybe not.
Pervert
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..
This proves judges don't have the last word.
What do u mean? Gorsuch was confirmed.
i hear his brakes were frozen, what was wrong with his heater?
I'm so excited Judge Gorsuch is in the spotlight! He is a great judge!
Best the white NATIONALISTS can install
@@phriedokra6158 the constitution isn't nationalist
As if...
Just because he refuses to express opinions doesn't mean he doesn't have them, and is not an indication that he is fair and impartial.
How you feel about something doesn't dictate how you rule in a case
Except when you've spent a life advocating for same causes. Nice try.
you mean how trumpkins feel that they won the election shouldn't mean that they actually won? try to explain that to any trumptard....
Are you kidding? You ever hear of Justices Thomas and Alito?
"Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a longer (33-page) concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretative rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.” He sought to downplay the impact of Friday’s ruling, contending that “all today’s decision means is that, going forward, federal courts will do exactly as this Court has since 2016, exactly as it did before the mid-1980s, and exactly as it had done since the founding: resolve cases and controversies without any systemic bias in the government’s favor.”
I kind of felt bad for Franken.. He had no idea what he was walking into and got completely destroyed by an honest, well educated, sincere person. It made him look like a fool seeking gotcha points and completely backfired
The Piper Report no he wasn’t destroyed, judge won’t answer questions.
I find Gorsuch incredibly fake.
"I don't mean to cut you off, but..... you aren't falling for the bait. Let's move on."