# Gorsuch confirmation hearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653 "2017-03-20T22:05:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/301 "2017-03-24T04:12:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The way to change this (in my view) flawed picture of judges’ roles that predominate here is simply to create a new normal. Thirty years of Trump-appointed judges might just make up for the raft of crap he’s otherwise going to deliver. I mean really, the Republicans can do away with the hearing all together if they wanted to at this point. Nuke the filibuster, and simply hold the vote. The next opening comes up and Trump could nominate Pryor or someone more conservative, and screw the pretense of a hearing at all, just have a vote and be done with the theater show. I don’t see anything that prevents that legally. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/302 "2017-03-24T04:28:28Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Meh. You can get charged with drunk driving sitting drunk in a parked car. I’m perfectly fine with ordering someone to stay put in a freezing vehicle is ordering a unsafe operation of the vehicle. And you reached this conclusion by reading the specific texts of the laws under which these drunk individuals were convicted, did you? In my state, one cannot be convicted of drunk driving merely by sitting drunk in a parked car. To sustain a conviction, the Commonwealth must show that the intoxicated person was: [ul] [li]seated behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle;[/li][li]on a public roadway;[/li][li]with the key inserted into the ignition switch of the vehicle.[/li][/ul] See _Enriquez v. Commonwealth_, 722 S.E.2d 252 (2012); see also convictions sustained following cases (case cites on request; all cited in Enriquez): _Gallagher v. Commonwealth_, drunk defendant found sitting at the steering wheel of a car, which was stuck in a ditch with the motor running, the car in gear, and a rear wheel spinning; _Nicolls v. Commonwealth_, drunk defendant found slumped over steering wheel of car, which was parked on hard surface of road with motor running, high beam lights on, and heater in operation; _Williams v. City of Petersburg_, drunk defendant found slumped over steering wheel of vehicle on a paved parking lot with motor running, headlights not on, car doors closed and locked; _Lyons v. City of Petersburg_, drunk defendant found seated behind steering wheel of car but made no statement about his striking of an unoccupied parked car in the rear and pushing it 25 to 30 feet; _Nelson v. Commonwealth_, drunk defendant found hunched over in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked on a cul-de-sac with the radio playing and the ignition key in an “on or accessory position”); _Rix v. Commonwealth_, drunk defendant exchanged seats with driver and was found by police sitting behind the steering wheel with keys in the ignition and the engine running. Note that the conviction was overturned in the case of \* Overbee v. Commonwealth\*, drunk defendant found standing in front of a pickup truck with the hood up, engine not running, and key not in ignition. You see the distinction? If the standard you propose is followed, he can stay in the cab without the key in the ignition, or he could unhook the tractor and drive five feet away instead of leaving the scene, and not get fired. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/303 "2017-03-24T04:43:00Z")
The truck driver was on a public roadway. I’m sure he was expected to have his key in the ignition, requiring heat and a radio. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/304 "2017-03-24T04:47:31Z")
So how big is the gap between Garland and Gorsuch? Like a Kennedy vs. a Scalia? ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/305 "2017-03-24T04:54:58Z")
Well, if we actually do ALL believe that, it follows logically that Congress, being a subset of “all of us”, would have passed a law preventing this firing had it occurred to them, so what rational reason could there be for objecting to a judge ruling in accordance with this universal belief? If the legislature specifically meant to permit employers to fire employees for taking life-saving actions in emergencies, they can pass a law to that effect, and only this one guy will have gotten away with doing what anyone with any common sense would have done in the situation. If, as seems more likely, no politician wants to take the side of this trucking company, justice will have been served without having to waste the legislature’s time with trivialities. It appears to me that “originalist” judicial philosophy is a cruel and cold-hearted school of thought which delights in using hyperliteralist, hair-splitting arguments in order to smugly announce that it regrettably finds itself ethically obligated to support an outcome which it acknowledges to be morally abhorrent. The time to object to judicial “activism” is when it affects matters that we DON’T all agree about. I would agree with you, for instance, that Roe and Oberkfell are bad law; neither the literal wording nor any reasonable inference about the intention of the authors supports the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines the right to have access to a particular medical procedure or to marry a particular person. Although I am personally strongly in favor of abortion rights and marriage equality, these are highly controversial questions, on which it is reasonable to assume that a legislature’s failure to change the status quo is a deliberate decision rather than an oversight. Judges shouldn’t issue sweeping rulings establishing new rights for large groups of people, no matter how strongly they feel that a particular ruling is just. But on narrow rulings that affect a particular person and will set a precedent which might be applied once every decade or so in the future, they should interpret the law in accordance with the principles of humanity and common sense. Gorsuch’s failure to do that in this case is a valid, though certainly not decisive, argument against his nomination. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/306 "2017-03-24T05:26:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > First, a judge being more conservative than Scalia is totally appropriate. There is no rule that a judge needs to have a certain political bent. Second, while your link does say the 87% figure, the cite it uses does not - in fact it links a site that was published in July 2016. I can’t find evidence of this 87% figure, and even taken at face value, that it’s based on campaign contributions, that’s a poor measure and almost wholly uninformative, IMO. My apologies. It’s just that the [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/neil-gorsuch-could-be-the-most-conservative-justice-on-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.22c9ebfb02f3) cites different research that comes to a similar conclusion, based this time on the actual decisions handed down. > [@Bricker](#): > > This thread is making me the happiest I have been about the future since November 8th. I was really devastated at the prospect of a Trump presidency. > > But reading this collection of ideas about what judges should be makes me happy as a clam with the Gorsuch nomination and filled with hope that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, or Sotomayor decide that retirement is a sweet reward. I’d even be okay with them taking senior status in a circuit. > > I am energized. I want the Dems to filibuster now. And I want the filibuster rule nucleared out of existence and then I want Trump to nominate Pryor, then Kethledge. Both of them are in their fifties - that’s hopefully thirty years of service. > > And of course he needs to get busy on the circuit and district court vacancies. > > The way to change this (in my view) flawed picture of judges’ roles that predominate here is simply to create a new normal. Thirty years of Trump-appointed judges might just make up for the raft of crap he’s otherwise going to deliver. And at the same time produce decision after decision that is absolutely shit for the American people. I’m sorry, when I think of major right-wing victories in the courts lately, you know what I think of? Citizens United, what could have happened if Obamacare was overruled over a basic oversight that ignored what the person drafting the law had actually _meant_, what could have happened if Obergfell went the other way, what could happen if we no longer interpreted Title IX to talk about sexual and gender identity discrimination. But hey, you don’t have to care about that shit. You work a high-end, well-paying job that probably gets decent benefits or at least makes enough money to cover your health care, you clearly value “have a conservative on the court” over “have sane governance”, you’re straight, and you’re cisgender. So none of this shit really has to matter to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/307 "2017-03-24T05:29:06Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > The truck driver was on a public roadway. I’m sure he was expected to have his key in the ignition, requiring heat and a radio. So what? Expected by whom? What the hell are you saying, specifically? Explain how this statement ties into 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B). Or whatever argument you are making? He was on a public roadway. Yes. He needed the key in the ignition to get heat. So why didn’t he just stay there, idling, getting his heat and radio, and wait? Then he doesn’t get fired. He got fired because he disconnected his trailer and drove away. If he does not drive away, he does not get fired. Now, please explain what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/308 "2017-03-24T05:37:40Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Well, if we actually do ALL believe that, it follows logically that Congress, being a subset of “all of us”, would have passed a law preventing this firing had it occurred to them, so what rational reason could there be for objecting to a judge ruling in accordance with this universal belief? It’s not a power of Congress, for one thing. Congress has power only where the Constitution grants it, as opposed to states, which have plenary legislative power. And more generally, I don’t want judges who feel empowered to create new law to sustain their opinion of “universal belief.” Congress, or any legislature, speaks through its written laws, not through a judge’s opinion of what they meant to do, but did not do. > [@](#): > > If the legislature specifically meant to permit employers to fire employees for taking life-saving actions in emergencies, they can pass a law to that effect, and only this one guy will have gotten away with doing what anyone with any common sense would have done in the situation. If, as seems more likely, no politician wants to take the side of this trucking company, justice will have been served without having to waste the legislature’s time with trivialities. Congress has limited power. They can’t legislate in any area they please. > [@](#): > > Judges shouldn’t issue sweeping rulings establishing new rights for large groups of people, no matter how strongly they feel that a particular ruling is just. But on narrow rulings that affect a particular person and will set a precedent which might be applied once every decade or so in the future, they should interpret the law in accordance with the principles of humanity and common sense. Gorsuch’s failure to do that in this case is a valid, though certainly not decisive, argument against his nomination. The problem is that granting them the power you mention is simply a step to surrendering the power to create new rights for large groups of people. After all, if it’s good and just to help one person, then surely its gooder and juster to help ten. And ubergood and superjust to help 100. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/309 "2017-03-24T05:42:01Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > But hey, you don’t have to care about that shit. You work a high-end, well-paying job that probably gets decent benefits or at least makes enough money to cover your health care, you clearly value “have a conservative on the court” over “have sane governance”, you’re straight, and you’re cisgender. So none of this shit really has to matter to you. I was born into poverty and grew up poor as the child of a Salvadoran immigrant. And when I was poor and concerned about paying for basics like food, I held similar opinions to the ones I have now. I certainly envied the people with good jobs. But I did not believe that the country owed me court decisions that would assist me regardless of what the written law said. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/310 "2017-03-24T12:58:31Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Why not? > > Take for example our frozen trucker case. Should he be out of luck because it hadn’t occurred to anyone to pass a law specifically covering the situation where a trucker has to disconnect his trailer and abandon his cargo in order to avoid potential death by frostbite? Why shouldn’t a judge be able to look at existing law, infer the underlying principle thereof, and apply it to a situation slightly different than that explicitly addressed in the statutes? If the legislature really did want that guy to choose between losing his job or freezing to death, they could simply pass a specific law to that effect to override the ruling. > > We have many more judges than legislators; isn’t it reasonable to leave the judges to deal with routine cases and allow the legislators to settle difficult ones, rather than expect the legislators to anticipate every possible situation which a judge might encounter? I’ve addressed this at some length in post #247. Let me know if there’s something else you’re asking. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/311 "2017-03-24T13:43:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He wasn’t fired for refusing to operate it. He was fired for leaving it. > > If he stayed with the trailer, he still would have been refusing to operate it, but they would not have fired him. > > If someone gave him a ride on a rickshaw and he left both trailer and tractor there, he would have been fired. > > He was not fired for refusing to operate anything, no matter how many contortions are applied to the word. He was fired for being in Place A while leaving the trailer in Place B. If an angel had wafted him to warm safety in Miami, he would have been fired. If Albus Dumbledore had given him a portkey to Godric’s Hollow, he would have been fired. If Scotty had beamed him aboard the Enterprise, he would have been fired. > > If he had stayed with his trailer he would not have been fired. > > Now, explain clearly, please, how he was fired for refusing to “operate,” again. Be specific. But don’t dodge the basic fact that he was fired for leaving, not fired for operating anything. Lot of Republican smugness on display here. Note that, if any of your absurd examples had in fact happened, Gorusch’s reasoning would not apply, and the statute would protect the employee. Remember, Gorusch’s argument is that by driving he vehicle, he was in fact “operating”, so he wasn’t protected by a statute that protects for “refusing to operate”. Addressing your final question (which I wouldn’t need to do if you had in fact read the opinion as you claim): “operate” is not defined in the statute. One reasonable interpretation of “operate” is “control the functioning of”. The employee refused to operate the trailer in that he refused to remain in control of the trailer while waiting for its repair. This is all explicitly spelled out in footnote 4 of the opinion itself. I trust the issue is now closed. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/312 "2017-03-24T13:50:50Z")
Looking at some more recent posts of yours, **Bricker** , I’m wondering: did you overlook the fact that the heater in the truck driver’s cab was not functioning? He could not have “unhooked the trailer and driven five feet away” and changed his circumstances in any material respect. The fact is that he was in his cab, with the motor running, and was freezing, to the point that he couldn’t feet his feet, his chest was numb, and his speech was growing slurred. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/313 "2017-03-24T14:43:53Z")
As I said yesterday, Gorsuch’s confirmation is 100% guaranteed: McCain, when asked about Dem filibuster: " “I think we’ll address it when it happens. None of us want to do it, but we’re going to confirm Gorsuch.” Lindsey Graham: “Whatever it takes to get him on the court, I will do.” If Democrats filibuster, the filibuster goes away. Guaranteed. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/314 "2017-03-24T14:48:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? > > Expected by whom? > > What the hell are you saying, specifically? Explain how this statement ties into 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B). Or whatever argument you are making? > > He was on a public roadway. Yes. > > He needed the key in the ignition to get heat. So why didn’t he just stay there, idling, getting his heat and radio, and wait? Then he doesn’t get fired. > > He got fired because he disconnected his trailer and drove away. > > If he does not drive away, he does not get fired. > > Now, please explain what you mean. Staying in the cab was a dangerous instruction. The heater wasn’t working properly and he’d gone numb from following that order for three hours. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/315 "2017-03-24T14:53:50Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > As I said yesterday, Gorsuch’s confirmation is 100% guaranteed: > > McCain, when asked about Dem filibuster: " “I think we’ll address it when it happens. None of us want to do it, but we’re going to confirm Gorsuch.” > > Lindsey Graham: “Whatever it takes to get him on the court, I will do.” > > If Democrats filibuster, the filibuster goes away. Guaranteed. I think so too. Though I read on The Hill where some Democrats speculated that the Republicans might not be able to pull it off. It’s a bit ironic that Democratic resolve here is being stiffened by the specter of the Tea Party. Democrats as well as Republicans have learned the lessons of what can happen to comfortable incumbents in relatively safe districts if they get primaried by an enraged base. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/316 "2017-03-24T14:56:15Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Staying in the cab was a dangerous instruction. The heater wasn’t working properly and he’d gone numb from following that order for three hours. So what? Again, single sentences are meaningless. It was a dangerous thing to do to remain in the cab, so he drove away in the cab? Let me ask you a more basic question. Do you understand that if you work for me, and I ask you to return books I borrowed to the library, and you arrive at the library only to discover a hostage situation underway, a burning car near the front door, and live anthrax spores released into the air, and you decide to not enter the danger area, I can legally fire you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/317 "2017-03-24T15:01:33Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Lot of Republican smugness on display here. Note that, if any of your absurd examples had in fact happened, Gorusch’s reasoning would not apply, and the statute would protect the employee. Remember, Gorusch’s argument is that by driving he vehicle, he was in fact “operating”, so he wasn’t protected by a statute that protects for “refusing to operate”. > > Addressing your final question (which I wouldn’t need to do if you had in fact read the opinion as you claim): “operate” is not defined in the statute. One reasonable interpretation of “operate” is “control the functioning of”. The employee refused to operate the trailer in that he refused to remain in control of the trailer while waiting for its repair. > > This is all explicitly spelled out in footnote 4 of the opinion itself. I trust the issue is now closed. No. It’s not closed. Operate cannot mean “remain in the vicinity of.” It’s true he refused to “control the functioning of” the trailer. Yes. Good. No problems there. But that’s not why he was fired. He was fired for LEAVING. He refused to control the functioning of the trailer, and his job was safe. Then he left it and went away from it. That’s the action that got him fired. Lots of Deomcratic “words mean anything they need to if it helps the helpless” on display here. In my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/318 "2017-03-24T15:20:40Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Looking at some more recent posts of yours, **Bricker** , I’m wondering: did you overlook the fact that the heater in the truck driver’s cab was not functioning? He could not have “unhooked the trailer and driven five feet away” and changed his circumstances in any material respect. The fact is that he was in his cab, with the motor running, and was freezing, to the point that he couldn’t feet his feet, his chest was numb, and his speech was growing slurred. No. But what does “changing his material circumstances” have to do with the law in play here? Your argument, unstated, is, “Do I realize that the company was asking him to choose between getting fired and freezing to death?” Yes. I do. Now tell me what law the company violated by doing that. The underlying message here is, “Because the company acted so poorly, we’ll contort the law to achieve justice.” Sorry. I prefer to ask the legislature to fix the law. And for all I know, there are a host of civil actions the company’s conduct could trigger. What it should NOT trigger is 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B)(ii) refusal to operate protection. Turn it around. Suppose we were discussing identical circumstances, but the law in question said that refusal to operate an assigned vehicle was a permissible termination offense. And the driver said, contesting his firing, “I didn’t refuse to operate – I drove the only part of the equipment I safely could. And I did it to avoid freezing.” What would you say then? Would you still contend that “operate” has the same broad meaning? I am very confident the answer is no. You’d indignantly (and this time correctly) point out that he did operate the tractor cab. Right? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/319 "2017-03-24T15:20:51Z")
Staying in the parked cab was a dangerous order. He feared freezing to death if he stayed and guarded the traiker as ordered. Driving 5 feet away wouldn’t have saved his life. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/320 "2017-03-24T15:22:48Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Remain where he was a dangerous order. He fear freezing to death if he stayed and guarded the traiker as ordered. Driving 5 feet away wouldn’t have saved his life. Yes, I agree. SO WHAT?? Do you understand that if you work for me, and I ask you to return books I borrowed to the library, and you arrive at the library only to discover a hostage situation underway, a burning car near the front door, and live anthrax spores released into the air, and you decide to not enter the danger area, I can legally fire you? That if I order you to go in and you don’t, I can fire you? Yes or no? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=17)