Nobody is arguing, as far as I can tell, that judges should make “fanciful” interpretations of law. I believe that, where there is reasonable doubt about how a law should be interpreted, judges should be guided by common sense and, where available, evidence about the intent of the legislators. I’m not sure where you would differ with me; is it your contention that there are no situations in which reasonable doubt could ever exist? If not, then we differ merely on whether doubt exists in some particular case, and I think it is disingenuous to claim that a difference of opinion about some judgment call is driven by “philosophy”.
Obviously there are situations where reasonable doubt will exist. In those cases, the reasonable doubt will be reasonable doubt regardless of which ruling would produce a better outcome.
The question is where there’s not what would be reasonable doubt if one ruling was not specifically preferred, but there’s motivation to find/create some ambiguity in order to allow a preferred ruling.
My handy Webster’s Fourth lists eight definitions for “operation”, and FWIW the one I prefer (“to exert some influence over” is listed before the one you prefer (“to control or set in motion, as a machine”). Either interpretation makes sense grammatically and contextually. On what basis do you assert that one of these readings is self-evidently correct and one is “fanciful”, other than that one of them gives the result you prefer?
Either of those definitions backs the ruling. He was ordered to stay in control of and to monitor the trailer. The two methods he had available to him were dangerous so he felt he had to disobey orders. The Grosuch/Bricked definition of “operate” is comically restrictive.
I’m not saying that at all.
There are scads of intelligent, intellectually honest people who say that the proper role of the judiciary is to help grow and shape the law in a socially conscious, enlightened way.
There’s nothing objectively wrong with that view.
And:
His gas gauge was below empty because he missed his fuel stop earlier.
Sympathy facts: utterly irrelevant to the issue under discussion, but very relevant to firing up sympathy for the bind poor Maddin was in.
No English speaker uses that word that way when talking about operating a motor vehicle. I exert influence over my car as it is sitting outside in the driveway. Nobody would seriously say I am operating it right now.
Not at all. Yours is comically expansive, and I’m of the strong opinion it arises not from anything except a desire to not end up ruling that the driver had no legal recourse.
You would, I feel sure, be very comfortable in using a restrictive, simple definition of operate if it would have saved his job under these circumstances.
No I wouldn’t. I’m not the lefty boogeyman of your fevered dreams.
You’ve just concluded that a guy “refused to operate” a vehicle when he was fired driving the vehicle away after unhitching the cargo and leaving the cargo behind, unattended.
Sorry, but my opinion of you remains unshaken. This isn’t criminal law, where the law is always construed strictly against the government. The company is entitled to the plain, ordinary meaning of the law’s words.
8 pages on this frozen trucker ruling?
Dude ruled with the majority 99% of the time, and gave the best response you will ever hear in a confirmation hearing to Sen. Feinstein’s question on the 14th Amendment and originalism.
Give it up. He’s no ideologue. Just a reasonable man with a brilliant eloquence to his words.
No! EVIL!!! He is EVIL and must be destroyed. As must anything Trump touches! All must be burned and then salted so that nothing may grow.
Or so I have surmised.
He refused to operate it in the way he was ordered, dragging trailer or parked. Pretty simple really. I didn’t expect to change your opinion of me. The hyper partisans on this board like yourself are pretty unshakeable.
That would have been fine. He’d have kept his job, if that’s all he did.
HE LEFT. That’s why he was fired.
The thing is – it’s not partisan. Mine is a consistent approach to statutory construction that yields identical results no matter which side benefits.
It’s you, and your side more generally, that seeks to use the law as a tool to help mold social progress in the way they wish.
I don’t deny that many on the right are similarly inclined, of course. But I am a guy who looks at the plain meaning of the law and applies it. My results are the same no matter which side benefits.
What do you imagine “my side more generally” Is? Because I’m quite certain you’re wrong.
The side that elevates the mandate for judges to rule in ways that advance justice and progress over the need to have judges rule in accord with the plain text of the legislation they are applying.
Nah.
The company did not order him to drag the disabled trailer. It did not fire him for refusing or failing to drag the disabled trailer. It fired him not remaining with the disabled trailer.
His instructions were to remain with the trailer. He did not remain with the trailer. That’s why he was fired.
Let’s say that again because I’m about to go crazy arguing a very simple point: He was fired because he did not remain along side the road with the trailer until assistance arrived.
That is a pretty shitty reason for firing a guy given the extenuating circumstances, but it is in no way, by using English language definitions, a firing FOR refusing to operate a motor vehicle.
This sophistry that you are attempting to use is merely a results oriented way to do the right thing and let the guy keep his job.
How about this:
Say I am a trucker and I report to work every morning drunk as a skunk. The boss tells me to make my run, but I realize how drunk I am so I refuse to operate my truck because if I did so it would create a risk of injury to others.
May I be fired or does this law protect me?
Ffs, yeah they did. He was given two choices. Drag the trailer or wait in the cold.
Look I get it. We aren’t going to see eye to eye on this. Unfortunately for you, apparently Gorsuch was the only guy with integrity and a dictionary on the panel that day.