Staying there and using the cab as his guard post is a dangerous operation of the truck. Can’t be fired for refusing a dangerous operation.
Third time:
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?
That may be true. But what does that have to do with the law that was discussed in the court decision? He was not fired for “operating” anything or refusing to “operate” anything. He was fired for leaving the trailer when he was explicitly told not to. Yes, it was dangerous to stay there if he was in danger of freezing to death. Yes, I would have left as well. And I would have gotten fired. And there is no law preventing that from happening.
Judges cannot make their decisions based on “there oughta be a law” mentality. They should make their decisions on “there is a law” mentality.
You are incorrect. At least, the administrative review board says that you are incorrect, and two judges on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals say that you are incorrect. He was not fired for leaving. He was fired for “refusing to operate”, using the definition of “operate” as “control the functioning of”. He was directed to remain in control of the trailer, and he refused because it was unsafe to do so.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why can you not accept that the definition applied by the ARB and the Tenth Circuit is the correct one? Is it because you, like Gorusch, are applying only the definition that you think applies, even though the term is undefined?
I note that in another recent thread you posted,
Yet you do not note here that your limited definition of “operate” is only your opinion, not the law. Curious.
Please explain how you “control the functioning of” the trailer by remaining in its vicinity. How exactly is the trailer “functioning” when it is sitting there, motionless? Talk about stretching the definitions to achieve the result you want.
Because we both know that if the position of the parties were reversed, I’d still be arguing for the same definition of “operate,” and you’d be arguing for the definition that created “justice” as best you saw it.
It would really only take 2 (or is it 3?) Republicans to desire to preserve the filibuster for it to remain. I would not make such a guarantee myself - but I think it’s a good bet.
I don’t think the research cited by WaPo comes to the same conclusion specifically. The conclusions you posted previously were:
[ol]
[li]Gorusch is more conservative than Scalia. [/li][li]He’s more conservative than 87% of all other federal judges[/li][/ol]
I will gladly acknowledge that Gorsuch is what is typically described as conservative in his judicial philosophy. That part isn’t in question so the pronouncement that he is conservative is not really surprising or controversial. But is he more conservative than Scalia? Well I think that will depend on how it’s measured. In looking at the actual research here is how they describe the methodology:
The research cited does show that Gorsuch as measured would be more conservative than Scalia, however I’m not sure how meaningful that is. It certainly isn’t disqualifying, IMO, as you indicated previously. A few things stand out to me about the methodology though: Why just the dissents? Is it fair to base their assessment on 26 overlapping cases? Is it reasonable to do this type of analysis when the two courts are faced with different circumstance, different negotiations, and serving a different purpose? This methodology would be more robust if it was conducted for other jurists where the results are more known - say for the current members of SCOTUS when they served in an appellate role.
So two things. First, I grant that Gorsuch is conservative - whether the magnitude of his conservatism is greater than Scalia I’m not convinced, but I am convinced it doesn’t matter. Second, the 87% figure is without merit.
When you lose McCain and Graham, it’s a 100% guarantee.
Here’s how I view a guarantee - I would bet everything I own knowing that it is certain. In this case, I would not do that, therefore guarantee is too strong. Several things can happen that are unknown that would foreclose the possibility of eliminating the filibuster that are well within the realm of possibility. McCain and Graham could both die, for instance. Dying tends to screw with guarantees.
Or a SMOD could wipe us out. But by that logic, nothing at all is ever 100% certain. Fine. 99.99% certain. I will take any bet anyone proposes on Gorsuch’s eventual confirmation. If SMOD comes, money won’t mean much anyway.
How about, I bet you at 100,000:1 odds that Gorsuch is not confirmed by the end of 2018. If I lose and Gorsuch is confirmed by the end of 2018, I pay you $1. If you lose, and Gorsuch is not confirmed by the end of 2018, you pay me $100,000. Do we have a bet?
The employee controlled the functioning of the trailer in that, while the trailer was in his presence, he was in charge of directing whether or not it went anywhere (whether or not it “functioned”). Similarly, I am operating my computer, even when I’m not actively using it, because I control whether or not it is doing something.
I was not talking odds bets. I was talking 1:1 bet.
It’s not worth the $1 I get. And if it’s any significant value, I can’t cover the 100,000:1 odds. I am not at Trump’s level of wealth. Yet.
But I will take the 10:1. Your $10 vs my $100. Deal?
That’s a huge stretch. That would lead to an absurd result that I am “operating” my computer in my locked house when I am on the other continent. Because I control whether or not it is doing something.
Suddenly “certainty” sounds a lot like “I’m very confident”… 10:1 is pretty weak!
Well no, I think that bet is still in your favor 
Out of curiosity, if the company fired him for operating his rig too many hours without rest, and the facts were that he had pulled into a rest stop, turned off the engine, and was sleeping in the back, how would you react?
That’s not what you said. You said:
AFAIK that has nothing to do with the law in question as it doesn’t involve giving or following an unsafe order.
True. But it has to do with the meaning of the word “operate.”
I’m trying to explore whether “operate” means one thing in 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B)(ii) and something different in other rules.
Notice how I answer your questions and you refuse to answer mine?
Fourth time:
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?