March 22, 2017

I watched some, but nothing close to all, of the Gorsuch hearing.

I mostly watched the Al Franken excoriation, but also, merely by chance, some of Hatch and Cruz softball interludes.

It is, of course, what I expected (as briefly outlined in "Can we expect the Gorsuch hearings to be anything but bland blather?").

Gorsuch is doing the usual routine as well as it can be done. He looks great. Wonderful voice. Not only unflappable but never giving rise even to the slightest anxiety/hope that he could become less than rock-solid unflappable.

The Democrats on the committee know there's no stopping him, so what are they doing? Each one gets so much time to labor through their questions, which — if I can judge from Franken — all seem to be paraphrasable as: Aren't you a big meanie who, like all Republicans, hates the little guy and wouldn't shed a tear if he froze to death before your very eyes?



The Democrats need to do some theater, enough to skirt criticism from their base. It's a little tricky. If they bear down, they look like they're politicizing the judiciary, and every damn time Gorsuch will deploy one of his 10 elegant ways to inform them — as if they're the slowest learners on the planet — that it is not the role of the judiciary to engage in politics.

I can only take so much, but I did watch Franken. You can watch the clip and hear him go on and on about a man who got fired for driving a truck — despite its malfunctioning brakes — because he was freezing and the truck would warm him up. [NOTE: That's not quite right, as explained under  "ADDED," below.] There was a statute that protected truck drivers from getting fired for refusing to drive a malfunctioning truck, but this was the opposite. His employer wanted him not to drive the malfunctioning truck, and he did it anyway, to save himself from freezing (or so we are told).

The legal question was only whether the statute applied, not whether we feel sorry for the man or whether we would have fired him. Judge Gorsuch used the plain meaning of the statute. But judges might depart from the plain meaning of the text when it is necessary to avoid giving the language an absurd meaning, but it's obvious that the statute had a non-absurd meaning (which was to protect drivers who decline to drive defective trucks). But Franken, blatantly twisting the meaning of "absurd" — and reminding us that he was once a comedian — said:
“It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. That’s absurd. Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity. And I know it when I see it. And it makes me question your judgment.”
If that's what counts as "absurd," then judges could take any statute and twist it to mean whatever it would need to mean to allow them to bestow victory on any party the judge feels empathy with. That's a terrible idea for statutory interpretation. But Franken was into his own cuteness, chuckling at the wittiness of "I had a career in identifying absurdity." But the absurdity is in thinking that the ways of comedy would transfer to legal analysis.

And did Franken even hear himself? He said it was absurd to fire a man who chose his own life over the lives of others: "the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or caus[ing] other people to die possible by driving an unsafe vehicle." What's absurd about saying we don't want you driving for us if you'd choose to warm yourself up by driving a truck with defective brakes? The truck driver risked freezing to death if he didn't drive the truck, but driving the truck risked the death of himself and others. It's not absurd to say, he was wrong to drive the truck.

But even if you think it would be absurd not to drive the truck, the truck driver could only win if the statute that protected drivers who refused to drive defective trucks has only an absurd meaning if it's not stretched to protect drivers who don't refuse to drive defective trucks.

Gorsuch put up with the nonsense and didn't let all that taunting exasperate him. He knew that any show of irritation with Franken, any patronizing tone, might look like that lack of empathy Franken wanted to dramatize.

In Franken's heat about cold, Gorsuch kept his cool.

ADDED: I've got something really wrong about the case. The brakes on the trailer had locked, but the tractor unit could drive. Somehow the heat in the tractor unit was also broken. The man decided to unhitch the trailer and drive the tractor unit. The tractor unit itself was not defective, and he wasn't endangering others by driving that tractor unit in an effort to get somewhere to warm himself. But he disobeyed directions to stay with the trailer, and that's what got him fired. But the problem remains: He wasn't refusing to drive something that was defective. He was choosing to drive. We may agree that he made a good decision and think the company was cruel to fire him, but the legal question was whether he had a right to keep his job for doing something the company thought was a firing offense — abandoning the trailer.

Here's a detailed discussion of the legal question that brings out the issues much better than Franken did. I'm sorry I relied too much on Franken's emotive presentation of the case. There may have been some room to stretch the statute to give the man credit for refusing to pull the trailer (as he proceeded to drive the unhitched tractor unit). In fact, as you can see at that link, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had interpreted the statute that way. This gets to the important subject of deferring to the agency's interpretation (Chevron deference), which is what the majority did in the case. Gorsuch was dissenting.

ALSO: While empathy has been central to the Democrats' idea of judging and this case gave Franken material to push that theme dramatically, it's the Chevron deference question that is most important from a legal perspective. Here's lawprof Philip Hamburger in "Gorsuch’s Collision Course With the Administrative State." Hamburger concludes:
Chevron is a widely cited precedent, and precedents should never be casually overturned. But Chevron deprives Americans of their right to have judges who exercise their own independent judgment without systematic bias. Chevron is thus grossly unconstitutional — not least, a persistent denial of the due process of law.

Judges have a duty to reject Chevron with candor and clarity. Judge Gorsuch has done this. Rather than be berated for it, he should be congratulated.

237 comments:

1 – 200 of 237   Newer›   Newest»
Big Mike said...

The other day I discovered that Dianne Feinstein, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, never even attended law school. Yesterday the questioning was taken up by Al Franken, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not attend law school either. Are Democrats so unserious about government that they can't be bothered to put people knowledgeable about the law on the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Kevin said...

"If that's what counts as "absurd," then judges could take any statute and twist it to mean whatever it would need to mean to allow them to bestow victory on any party the judge feels empathy with."

No, that's very definition of Progressive "justice". And if you simply listen to them, they don't understand when the Judicial System fails to consistently produce it.

Empathy, justice, empathy, justice. And they'll determine who deserves empathy, and thus who should and should not benefit from the "just" power of the state.

Kevin said...

The most controversial thing Gorsuch has said - and the thing the media repeats over and over - is that he believes sometimes the right decision doesn't match what he'd like to happen.

If this weren't so controversial in parts of our society, it wouldn't be remarkable enough to single out.

Once written, twice... said...

Gorsuch will be confirmed and placed on the Supreme Court proving that Democrats, unlike Republicans, will not play politics with our courts. As long as Trump's future nominees are within the political mainstream like Gorsuch is, then you can expect that Senate Democrats will not block.

rhhardin said...

Trucks may be different, but you can certainly drive a car with no brakes, if it has stick shift.

You don't drive normally - you're the world's safest driver for the moment.

rehajm said...

Franken now has a career inventing and perpetuating absurdities.

rehajm said...

Wonderful voice

I couldn't place it at first, but Gorsuch sounds just like CBS correspondent Anthony Mason

Professional lady said...

An young adult child of a friend of mine recently posted on Facebook that the Trump administration is turning out to be a "Trumpster fire". He thinks Trump is just a buffoon. This young adult is a University of Michigan grad and thinks he is very knowledgeable and sophisticated, but he is actually not very well educated and naïve. That's our educational system today. Many people, including me, voted for Trump because of his promises regarding his Supreme Court pick. Hopefully, Trump will have at least one more pick to make.

urbane legend said...

Big Mike said...
Are Democrats so unserious about government that they can't be bothered to put people knowledgeable about the law on the Senate Judiciary Committee?


The Democrats have, or have had, within their ranks any number of people knowledgeable about the law. Some so knowledgeable they can ask what is is. They still aren't serious about law or good government.

Once written, twice... said...

And as usual Ann, you misrepresented the facts.

1) the trucker unhitched the trailer that had the frozen locked breaks before driving himself to safely.

2) Senator Franken did a pretty conclusive job demonstrating that almost everyone in that situation would do what the trucker did and it would be absurd to say that the plain meaning of the law should still apply. That is why there is the exception to the rule. But Gorsuch unreasonably ignored it to support the trucking company over the driver.

Win Senator Al Franken.

Meade said...

Something tells me, if you give Al Franken weed, whites and wine, and you show him a sign, he'd be willin', to be emotin'.

Ann Althouse said...

"And as usual Ann, you misrepresented the facts. 1) the trucker unhitched the trailer that had the frozen locked breaks before driving himself to safely."

I relied on Franken's muddled presentation, which was very much about emotion and inattentive to detail. The ADDED section of the post cleans up the facts and so forth. I regret the confusion.

"2) Senator Franken did a pretty conclusive job demonstrating that almost everyone in that situation would do what the trucker did and it would be absurd to say that the plain meaning of the law should still apply."

He did a terrible job of explaining what the absurdity exception to the plain meaning rule is and Gorsuch gently schooled him. It's not about whether you think it would be absurd for there not to be statutory protection for what this man did (abandoning the trailer because he was very cold). Maybe the reason you think Franken did such a great job is that you actually still don't understand the point. That would mean Franken did a terrible job, which is what I think.

"That is why there is the exception to the rule."

No, it's not.

"But Gorsuch unreasonably ignored it to support the trucking company over the driver."

There's no way Franken clearly demonstrated that. I don't even think it's true. You want to say Gorsuch just supports business? Typical left-wing cant. Is that really what you want to say?

Bob Boyd said...

As Jerry Reed sang so movingly:

"Keep your foot hard on the pedal. Son, never mind them brakes.
we're gonna do what they say can't be done.
I'm east bound, just watch ol' "Bandit" run."

Paco Wové said...

"Are Democrats so unserious about government"

Oh, they're serious about government. Just not so much about law.

traditionalguy said...

Gorsuch is a Central Casting perfect Justice. And that gives the Russian Agent President credits for picking him.

But Franken (Stein?) is playing to a script in which delay is the strategy because no illegitimate governance acts should be allowed until after the impeachment of the mentally disabled Russian Agent.

Meanwhile the Deep State's civil war moves along from battle to battle. And CNN has announced victory because The Conservatives have turned down Trump's key reform legislation.

As for the Perfect Mr Gorsuch, he is making the next Justice selection an impossible role to play after Mr Perfect In Every Way's performance.

Kevin said...

"But Gorsuch unreasonably ignored it to support the trucking company over the driver."

Love this: "unreasonably ignored".

Not "didn't agree", which would lead one to believe there were other ways of viewing the situation and inviting the reader to consider what those might be. No, let's combine "didn't agree" and "wrongly so" into "unreasonably ignored" when describing the ruling. This sets up the reader to believe, unless they want to delve into the details of trucking regulation and Chevron defense, that Gorsuch went out of his way to rule against this poor man when no reasonable sort would, nay *could*, do so.

Did you take time to think that through, or does it just flow naturally at this point?

Once written, twice... said...

Ann, thank you for correcting the record.

Franken has a short amount of time to present very complex material. He did a masterful job.

And of course it is political. You always pretend that is not true on the Republican side. That only Democrats are engaging in politics. That might play well with your overwhelmingly conservative fan base on your blog, but it is not very truthful.

Birkel said...

Chevron deference has allowed the administrative state to grow nearly without bound. If Leviathan is to be thwarted that is one thing that must be changed.

Birkel said...

@ Once written

Perhaps if you hold your breath and stamp your feet...

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Anne Gorsuch, Neil's mother, ran the agency that got the deference in the Chevron case. So Neil would not have given deference to his mother? Or would he only give deference to agencies run by his mother?

MikeR said...

Lucky thing that Franken is so incompetent.

Birkel said...

@ Left Bank

She is dead.

traditionalguy said...

I hear David Prosser is available for an upcoming pick. If DJT picks Prosser, and Franken taunts him, we may get to see the first public Senate choking of a Senator in history.

But seriously, the best next coming up pick would be Justice Kellyanne Conway. One more female Catholic, but the only one with talent that is better than Mr Perfect Pick's style.

MikeR said...

"Anne Gorsuch, Neil's mother, ran the agency that got the deference in the Chevron case. So Neil would not have given deference to his mother?" Bizarre question. Did you even think about this?
Your argument seems to be:
1) Gorsuch is a bad person.
2) It would be bad to give special deference to his mother. Therefore,
3) Gorsuch would have done it.
4) Hypocrite!

Qwinn said...

"Proving that Democrats, unlike Republicans, will not play politics with our courts."

Robert Bork, Miguel Estrada and countless others could not be reached for comment. Actually, Estrada could be, but for some strange reason the press never wants to talk to him. Probably "because... he is Latino."

exiledonmainstreet said...

"He did a masterful job"

Two words that should never appear in the same sentence: Franken and masterful.

He's a buffoon.

Tarrou said...

I don't understand the truck driver's choice. Heat in a vehicle works whether you are moving or not. The engine just has to be running. If he could drive it, he could just run it and have the heat on. There's no logical connection between avoiding freezing to death and driving the truck away from the trailer.

Qwinn said...

Oh, and, Miguel Estrada should be the next pick, and every question Franken asks should be replied to with "Did 'the Groups' tell you to oppose Justice Estrada because he is Latino? Oh, wait, we alreadky know they did." Talk about it until the press is forced to report what was really done to him by racist Democrats.

Once written, twice... said...

And Ann, you made your mistake because you so desperately want to believe that liberals would argue something like that it is okay for a freezing trucker to drive a defective truck even though that would potentially put dozen more lives at risk.

Once written, twice... said...

Tarrou, the heater was not working either when standing still or being driven (probably a broken thermostat.) The trucker made the completely reasonable decision to unhitch from the defective trailer and drive himself to a place where he could warm himself up.

Birkel said...

@ Once written

So the internal combustion engine on that particular truck does not produce heat? Do you have a perpetual motion machine too?

sinz52 said...

Liberal Democrats have been trading on the Supreme Court ruling inm Brown v. Board of Education (1954) for half a century.

To win blacks their civil rights, the Supreme Court bypassed several legal and constitutional issues and mostly cited *psychological and sociological studies* to claim that "separate but equal" was inherently equivalent to treating them as inferiors and they would feel that way. That's probably true from a sociological standpoint. But that has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution.

And that has encapsulated the liberal view of the Supreme Court. As ultra-liberal justice Thurgood Marshall put it:

"You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

Titus said...

democrats bad; republicans good.

Brando said...

I'm not up on the trailer case facts, but did the driver reasonably anticipate he would die if he stayed put where his company told him? I realize their rescue vehicle showed up only 15 minutes later, but considering he had been waiting hours in the cold did he reasonably anticipate that the only way to save his life was to drive away?

Not that that is what should drive the judge's decision--his job is simply to interpret the statute in question. If the statute is "bad" then it's the legislature's job to fix it. But if the driver acted reasonably to save his life with minimal danger to others it seems odd OSHA or some other workplace protection regime would not give him some protection.

Brando said...

"While empathy has been central to the Democrats idea of judging and this case gave Franken material to push that theme dramatically, it's the Chevron deference question that is most important from a legal perspective."

That's the rub--their job is simply to interpret the law properly, not to impose their own empathy and sense of "what is right". Legislatures have that right.

AReasonableMan said...

Paul Manafort was paid $10million a year by a Russian billionaire 'in secretive plan to benefit the Putin government' by lobbying for it within the U.S.

Birkel said...

@ Brando

The word simply is doing too much work.

Once written, twice... said...

Birkel, while it is not my job to explain to you how a vehicle heating system works, I never-the-less will do so.

This truck's heater has a thermostat. When that thermostat fails it can do so either in the on or off position. In this case it malfunctioned causing the heater to not draw heat from the engine into the cab. So unless you expect the trucker to go and crawl underneath the engine hood of his truck, then he had no way to warm himself.

Are you conservatives really so divorced from the workings of the world?

Birkel said...

@ Once written

I was promised a perpetual motion machine.

AReasonableMan said...

Trump's former campaign chief Paul Manafort 'tried to cover up $750,000 payment from a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine'

Saint Croix said...

Aren't you a big meanie who, like all Republicans, hates the little guy

Harry Blackmun, when he was nominated, swore up and down that he loved the little guy.

When liberals say "little guy," they're talking about adults.

Adult = little guy

Baby = non-existence

Mike Sylwester said...

One of the Senators should ask Gorsuch these questions:

1) Should a so-called "judge" have been able to base a decision in an immigration case on his perception that former President Obama obviously did not want to enforce any immigration laws?

2) Since President Obama obviously wanted -- instead of enforcing immigration laws -- to allow all illegal immigrants to stay and eventually become US citizens and Democratic voters, then shouldn't a so-called "judge" reflexively impose temporary restraining orders on all of President Obama's executive orders related to immigration?

3) On one occasion, President Obama seemed to remark that he considered illegal aliens to already be citizens? If a so-called "judge" agreed with that interpretation of President Obama's remark, then shouldn't he reflexively impose temporary restraining orders on any of Obama's executive orders excusing illegal aliens from deportation?

Once written, twice... said...

Birkel, your stupidity is enough of a perpetual motion machine for you. Don't fall off.

Saint Croix said...

Republicans are attacked over and over for loving corporations.

And it's true! Republicans love corporations.

When the Supreme Court was filled with Republicans, they said a corporation is a "person."

You know, like Ma Bell.

Why do we like corporations so much?

They make money. They pay taxes. They give people jobs. We call them honorary persons so they have access to the federal courts, and contracts can be enforced, and commerce can work, and we can all make money. And pay taxes. That's why Caesar loves corporations. They make money and pay money.

Democrats deny the humanity of the unborn child. They say she is a non-person. Why do Democrats say this about babies? Babies are cute. Babies are innocent. Why deny their humanity?

Babies don't make any money. Babies cost money. That baby is a mouth you have to feed. Babies don't pay taxes. Democrats look at babies and see a bunch of non taxpayers who cost too much. Let's get rid of some of those unwanted children. Save some money.

Corporations are persons, because Republicans love money.

Babies are non-persons, because Democrats love money.

Brando said...

"Harry Blackmun, when he was nominated, swore up and down that he loved the little guy."

Did Blackmun actually discuss abortion in his nomination hearing? I was under the impression that abortion wasn't a big issue for the Court until Roe.

Laslo Spatula said...

Whores Who Have Serviced Al Franken (Excerpts):

Maya, age 22.

Typical Tuesday night: my Service sends me to a politician's hotel room. Old white dude. Jewish, I think, so probably a Democrat, not that it matters -- they're all twenty-nine minutes of talk and a minute of fuck or suck, if they can actually get it up....

The guy welcomes me with some gag about Call Girls and texting, I wasn't paying attention -- I was checking out the room. A lot of these politicians like to try to hide a camera so they can film you fucking them; some even try to hide a camera in the bathroom: Ewwww....

“Uh… I’m Al,” he says, with a creepy grin.

"Sure: Al," I say, setting down my purse.

"I bet you saw me on the news today."

"Sorry. I don't watch the news anymore, since Jon Stewart quit."

"Jon Stewart? You know, I used to be on 'Saturday Night Live' back in the day. Some people say I was the 'Jon Stewart' of that time."

"Really?"

"Yeah. They say there probably wouldn't even have BEEN a Jon Stewart if not for me."

"Wow. Really. My Grandparents used to watch 'Saturday Night Live'. They say it was funny back then."

"It was. Because of me. I was an Important Part of the funny 'SNL'."

"Sure. OK."

"Now I'm a Senator. I fight for the working people. Like you. You know, have you ever thought of joining a Union?"

"My profession doesn't need a Union. We have pimps."

"To-may-to, To-MAH-to," he says, laughing at his joke. If this is what passes for funny, then that old SNL must've sucked, too...

"Have you ever had an abortion?" he then asks. "Because I support 'Planned Parenthood'. I bet a lot of girls in your industry need the occasional abortion."

"Maybe," I say. What a Douchebag.

"You seem.... older than the girls they usually send me."

"Is that a problem?"

“Uh, no offense, but I asked for a ‘young girl’…"

“I get it,” I say. He wants Tabitha, the little blonde who looks like she’s twelve. ALL the old politicians want her. "Sorry. Our young girl is off work today. I don't know, maybe she's getting an abortion."

"Oh," he says, awkwardly staring at his feet. "Well, I hope the Father wasn't ME," he says, with a tight awkward chuckle. "That would've got a big laugh for me back when I was on the show. I was edgy that way."

"Yeah. I bet if she knew it was you she'd keep the baby."

"Really? You think so? She talks about me?"

"No," I laugh. "We only talk about the guys who couldn't get it up."

"Oh."

"Should I have the Service send a younger girl?"

"Uh, yeah: thanks. I'd appreciate that."

"Sure," I say, getting my purse. "You were on 'Saturday Night Live', right? My grandparents would get a kick out of that: what was your name?"

"Uhhh.... Chevy Chase..."

I am Laslo.

Birkel said...

@ Once written

When one person mocks another, that proves the first person is stupid.
#LiberalLogic

David Baker said...

AA: "Somehow the heat in the tractor unit was also broken."

Diesel-powered tractors need to move in order to build up enough heat to warm the cab (trip the heater's thermostat). Unlike gas-powered engines, large diesels tend to run very cool, especially at idle. Driving the tractor, even by itself, known as "bob-tailing," creates enough "load" to create the necessary heat.

The truck's heater wasn't broken. Apparently the driver just didn't understand how diesels work.

Drago said...

I personally was "wow-ed" by the creation of the brand new and shiny "Super-Precedents!!"

This will no doubt lead to "Super-duper-Precedents"!

I hope no one will have the poor taste to violate all playground etiquette and move directly to the "Triple Dog Dare"-type Precedents.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Another good choice by Trump

Darrell said...

Engine/Truck expert Once Writen Twice Shit On The Sidewalk lectures us about "breaks" on a truck. Give me a brake!

Henry said...

Once written, twice... said...

"That is why there is the exception to the rule."

It would be cool if someone in Congress wrote "the exception" into law.

AprilApple said...

Franken - he stole his seat. Not funny. Democrats are corrupt.

Michael K said...

like Gorsuch is, then you can expect that Senate Democrats will not block.

So, they won't choose to die on this hill today ? They won't filibuster Gorsuch ?

Good to know.

News bulletin to ARM. Trump fired Manafort. Before he was elected.

Podesta had a similar problem and was not fired.

Birkel said...

@ Drago

Infinity + 1 precedent.
I win.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Birkel said...
@ Once written

So the internal combustion engine on that particular truck does not produce heat? Do you have a perpetual motion machine too?
3/22/17, 7:38 AM

Birkel, that was my thought too. But assuming facts (without wishing to support Once, whom I do not like), it is true that the HVAC in at least some automobiles will not produce heat to the passenger compartment if the vehicle's coolant temperature sensor (not its "thermostat" AFAIK, though cases differ) wrongly reads Cold.

Why? The proper valves will not open to send engine coolant to the heater core, because it does not know the coolant is hot. Therefore when you put the heater on, it will nonetheless not blow hot air, because the air is moving over could which are at ambient temperature.

This from experience in a 98 Camry, which HVAC may or may not differ in principle from that of a Mack truck.

Incidentally there is a jury-rig for that, which may or may not be available on a semi. But the driver may not have known this or, perhaps, had the requisite tools/materials.

I would have to read into the case to judge further.

Trumpit said...

I hate the most for being the worst judges on the Supreme Ct.: 1) Clarence Thomas (a dummy); 2) Joey Scalito (a clone of Scalia); 3) Antonio Scalia. I had to modernize "Antonin" because nobody has that odd name, and Scalia was an atavistic prig. Why am I mentioning Scalia if he is dead? Because the stench of his chambers still reeks to high heaven from his arrogance, homophobia & originalism bullshit. He deserved to die from a partial birth abortion, not peacefully in his sleep. Life is unfair, and so was he, that miserable son of a bitch.

I cannot stand the ongoing confirmation masturbation hearings, and wouldn't have liked the confirmation hearing of Meritorious Garland if they had taken place. So, I believe that confirmation hearings are a complete waste of time and should be eliminated now and in the future. Anyone who votes for heartless & soulless corporations over the hardworking, struggling common man should be summarily rejected, and executed in advance. In closing, boring TV is a crime against humanity, and the matter should taken up by the International Tribunal in the Hague or in a reactivated Nuremberg Trials. Scalia would have agreed that old-fashioned hanging is the preferred method of execution given he was a hangman himself.

Birkel said...

@ Bad Lieutenant

I am aware of how heat is delivered to the cab. My mockery of Once written depends not on my knowledge, however, but it's ignorance. David Baker, above, provides substance but I never wish to engage the trolls beyond mockery.

(The one exception is TTR who engages as best he can, wrongly yet honestly.)

Michael K said...

trumpit is contemplating suicide.

Good thinking. Why risk another set of confirmation hearings in a year or two?

The next nominee has already been selected.

mockturtle said...

Gorsuch is cool, all right. Maybe too cool. I remember Bork.

mockturtle said...

Beautifully done, Laslo!

Bad Lieutenant said...

As for insufficient heat at idle, the driver could have kept his foot on the accelerator to raise RPMs and generate heat.

Also, I apologize, some may call the engine's coolant temperature sensor a "thermostat," I thought this was referring to the cab's heater control, which is unlikely to fail in this way.

And a sentence should have read,

"when you put the heater on, it will nonetheless not blow hot air, because the air is moving over coils which are at ambient temperature.

Laslo Spatula said...

Trumpit said...
"...He deserved to die from a partial birth abortion..."

So you detest him, and the cruelty you would wish upon him is a Partial Birth Abortion?

That makes it sound like Partial Birth Abortion is awful and painful. Cruel, even.

I thought we were told that wasn't the case. The 'fetus' feels nothing, because it is not human. No abortion is cruel.

In fact, I thought "die from a partial birth abortion" was a modern way of saying "passed peacefully in his sleep."

Or are you arguing that abortion IS a horrible thing? If so, thank you for your candor. It is refreshing.

I am Laslo.



Birkel said...

@ Trumpit

Calling the one black Justice a dummy shows candor and faithfulness to the long Democrat tradition of racism that everybody respects.

Please cite a single shred of evidence to support your Democrat racism.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Trumpit said...
I hate the most for being the worst judges on the Supreme Ct.: 1) Clarence Thomas (a dummy);

Unlike you, Thomas at least knows how to write a proper English sentence.

What a vile racist you are. I hope that your job in the afterlife is to shine the shoes of Clarence Thomas for all eternity.

Henry said...

The critique of Gorsuch seems justified ("operate" means more than "drive), but also doesn't seem to bear the wild extrapolation that is occurring now. I also admit, not being a judge, that I bring no expertise to my first statement. It's worth noting, factually, that Maddin did not actually freeze to death.

I found this article added some interesting details:

Trucker Wins Case After Abandoning Frozen Trailer In Sub-Zero Temperatures

Interestingly, when Maddin first filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA, they rejected his claim. Unwilling to go down without a fight however, Maddin persisted and filed a complaint directly with the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Good for Maddin, for not quitting.

David Baker said...

PS>

The "locked" trailer brakes were also likely the result of driver error - ie ignorance. The truck's air tank needs to be bled of moisture regularly. Failure to do so causes "brakes" to freeze up in cold weather; the colder, the more likely a freeze-up - or lock up.

So it really sounds like the driver's employer had multiple reasons for the termination.

Bad Lieutenant said...

As you say, Birkel, I found David's info about cool-running diesels interesting also. We are all of us bad at ignoring trolls.

It would be mildly interesting to know whether the tractor was the driver's property or a fleet truck.

Henry said...

These articles also mention that the problem with the heat was a broken APU.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Gorsuch will be confirmed and placed on the Supreme Court proving that Democrats, unlike Republicans, will not play politics with our courts."

-- Bork and Estrada say otherwise.

Bad Lieutenant said...

May I recommend leaving Trumpit alone? He is a broken man and would be best treated with pity. I used to think he was a moby but now I see his sickness. The world has been extremely unkind to Trumpit and, as the cool kids say now, he can't even.

David Baker said...

"As for insufficient heat at idle, the driver could have kept his foot on the accelerator to raise RPMs and generate heat."

Not so. With a commercial diesel, it's not "rpm's", it's "load." In cold weather, racing a diesel engine will do virtually nothing to increase the engine's temperature relative to heating the cab. Especially from a cold start.

Bruce Hayden said...

Maybe recasting the question given Gorsuch might help. Let Dave be a Domino Pizza driver. Company policy is no guns on the job. Someone tries to rob Dave at gunpoint on on of his deliveries. Dave draws his legally concealed firearm and fires, ultimately killing his assailant. Dave is fired for breaking he company. Or, maybe Dave works at a 7/11, with the same rule, and same outcome - the robber rapidly approaching ambient temperature, thanks to Dave violating company and (legally) carrying a gun. The simularity is that the employee, dispute violating company policy, is alive, and might not have been if they had followed company policy.

Trumpit said...

Laslo, you are not as clever as you think you are. You fit right in with the rest of the Right-wing stooges around here. I specifically chose "partial-birth abortion" because stick-in-the-mud (now "stuffed in the mud") Scalia was always itching, and panting to overture Roe. Fortunately, he failed miserably in that fervent wish of his. I'm a racist? Look in the mirror. I quote Donald Trump, "I'm the least racist person on the planet." Yeah, right, liar.

Matthew Sablan said...

"There's no logical connection between avoiding freezing to death and driving the truck away from the trailer."

-- Matters how long/far out he was. If he was somewhere where bad snow could strand him for days, then yes, he needed to start moving. If he was going to be inconvenienced for a few hours and then maybe have to call in the trucker equivalent of AAA for towing or refueling, it makes less sense to leave his cargo behind.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Feinstein and Franken were idiotic enough. At least Gorsuch didn't have to listen to the brain-dead blathering of Democrat House members like Maxine Waters. Here's Waters' justification for impeaching Trump: "He [Trump] is wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to invade Korea."

Henry said...

Regarding the APU, this forum is interesting: Does Having An APU/EPU Really Matter?

The drivers on the forum all suggest that the APU supplements the normal heat/AC you can get from idling the engine. But that some trucks will automatically shut down if they idle too long.

If Maddin was low on fuel, he may have been worried about running out of diesel to run his engine and thus generate heat before the emergency vehicle got there.

Fernandinande said...

and precedents should never be casually overturned.

Says who, and why not?

Are there laws which say so, or do the lawprofs and government lawyers just make it up as they go along?

skirt criticism

Skirts garner criticism.

Henry said...

@Matthew Sablan -- It's clear from the facts of the case that Maddin was in touch with his dispatcher and told an emergency vehicle was on its way. The problem was that he waited a long time and was still being told to wait.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Skirts garner criticism.

3/22/17, 8:56 AM

They're better than pantsuits.

Meade said...

"democrats bad; republicans good."

Well, you're half right.

Laslo Spatula said...

Trumpit said...
" I specifically chose "partial-birth abortion" because stick-in-the-mud (now "stuffed in the mud") Scalia was always itching, and panting to overture Roe..."

Does nothing to refute my point. Pretty much just underlines it.

You see abortion as akin to torture, and you still support it.

You wish cruel abortion upon the people against abortion because of cruelty. Keep drawing that line on the Möbius strip...

I am Laslo.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'd want to read more details before shooting from the hip, but it seems to me that one of the first things you're told in an emergency is to listen to the emergency responders. But, if this was just his company, I'm not sure if that counts.

Still, "stay put" is usually solid advice.

Did the vehicles show up with no one there? What risks were taken to go to the guy who had moved out? Did he let them know he was abandoning the trailer and leaving to call off the rescue attempt?

Laslo Spatula said...

I love when the Mask slips.

Inevitably followed by "I MEANT to do that."

I am Laslo.

CWJ said...

"There was a statute that protected truck drivers from getting fired for refusing to drive a malfunctioning truck, ..."

Absent a contract, employers fire employees and employees quit employers for lots of reasons. I understand the political signalling of passing laws like this, but I don't understand the practcal need for them. Once you've refused to drive a malfunctioning truck, why would you continue to work for such a company, and why do you think a company which would fire you for that wouldn't find ways to make you pay for your insubordination. I presume that it is already illegal to put malfunctioning trucks on the road, so it seems the ultimate purpose of this law is to create a potential payday in court for the fired employee.

Michael K said...

I agree about leaving trumpit alone.

There is something wrong with him. Besides being a leftist and I can't even be sure of that.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, Warren and others are already floating the idea of delaying the vote until the investigation into Trump's Russia connections are complete.

So much for "the Democrats would never play politics with the Supreme Court" talking point.

damikesc said...

As, I think, he said --- if a judge never felt bad about a decision he had to make, he was a terrible judge. The law is supposed to sometimes be "cruel".

Paul Manafort was paid $10million a year by a Russian billionaire 'in secretive plan to benefit the Putin government' by lobbying for it within the U.S.

Manafort was the campaign manager to manage the convention and dumped shortly thereafter.

Danno said...

Kevin said..."Empathy, justice, empathy, justice. And they'll determine who deserves empathy, and thus who should and should not benefit from the "just" power of the state."

And the Dems answer is "just-us".

Bad Lieutenant said...

How funny, Henry, I was thinking of the APU as well. And of his fuel level.

It does seem the trucker wasn't very good at his job. Or do we blame his garagemen? Blame the rigger all you want for that broken parachute, let us know how that works out for you...meanwhile it would be nice to be able to fire people for not being good at their jobs.

David, I should have thought that racing the engine would work if done hard enough for long enough, but bow to your apparent expertise.

Fernandinande said...

Laslo Spatula said...
You see abortion as akin to torture, and you still support it.


An adult being partial-birth killed reminded me of this comic.

Gahrie said...

If that's what counts as "absurd," then judges could take any statute and twist it to mean whatever it would need to mean to allow them to bestow victory on any party the judge feels empathy with.

This seems like a pretty precise summation of Liberal judicial philosophy. One that you approve of. Isn't this exactly what has happened to the 14th Amendment? Isn't this exactly how the right to sexual privacy was invented?

That's a terrible idea for statutory interpretation

But apparently it is just fine when it comes to the Constitution and its amendments?

JAORE said...

Some days (like today) Trumpit is mildly interesting when viewed as satire.

If viewed as an honest statement of his opinion, he is a hateful, bigoted SOB.

But he serves as an excellent example when saying liberals are projecting when they tell us about evil conservatives.

And, Laslo, excellent point about partial birth abortion.

Birkel said...

@ damikesc

And the contracts in question were, I believe, from 2005-8.

Are you now or have you ever been in business with any Russian interests (except Podesta and Kennedy)?

Darrell said...

Locked brakes on the trailer would give you all the load you need.

mockturtle said...

Laslo, the mask is slipping from the entire world of Prog. It has become increasingly clear that they are capable of empathy only toward evildoers.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, I wish more justices would enforce the law as written.

The surest way to change a bad rule is to rigorously enforce it.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'd even like to see in their decision: "The end result of enforcing the X Act is unfair and will lead to hardship for the citizenry. Unfortunately, the law is constitutional. Stupid, but constitutional, and therefore stands. The remedy for this bad law is available, should the executive or legislative branches wish to rectify it. If they do not, then it is clear that this result is their intent."

Original Mike said...

"Proving that Democrats, unlike Republicans, will not play politics with our courts."

Justices Sotomayor and Kagen are available for comment.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I liked the way that Gorsuch elegantly and politely reminded the questioners that THEY are the ones responsible for writing the laws. That if they don't like the laws or don't like the interpretations of the Judiciary on those laws, as they were written, they are free to make a new law or rescind the old one.

He even said to one of the dimwits...."The ball is in your court" with the subliminal follow up and silently heard...."dickhead".

Gahrie said...

If that's what counts as "absurd," then judges could take any statute and twist it to mean whatever it would need to mean to allow them to bestow victory on any party the judge feels empathy with.

Isn't this what happens when you ignore the intentions of those who write the laws and the meaning of the words they used? isn't this what happens when you allow emotion to contaminate reason?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This truck's heater has a thermostat. When that thermostat fails it can do so either in the on or off position. In this case it malfunctioned causing the heater to not draw heat from the engine into the cab. So unless you expect the trucker to go and crawl underneath the engine hood of his truck, then he had no way to warm himself.

While I rarely agree with Once Written, this is accurate.

People who don't drive trucks or older vehicles have no idea of how mechanical systems work. Even if the engine is running (until it runs out of fuel!) if the thermostat is stuck in the closed position or heater core is malfunctioning the will not be heat coming into the cab.

Larvell said...

I can only assume that Franken, as a legislator, has diligently tried to amend the statute to say that an employee can't be fired for an absurd reason. Because, you know, it breaks his heart and everything.

David Baker said...

Bad Lieutenant said... "David, I should have thought that racing the engine would work if done hard enough for long enough, but bow to your apparent expertise."

Not to worry; your reasoning is perfectly sound.

I grew up around trucks, learned a lot, and drove cross-country as a young man. Although trucks have become more sophisticated, the basic principles remain the same. What hasn't changed is the need for experience, which the driver in question apparently lacked.

Curious George said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Typical left-wing cant."

You mean cunt, right?

Drago said...

Trumpit: ""Proving that Democrats, unlike Republicans, will not play politics with our courts."

Yes, a lefty just wrote that in the middle of the travel ban power usurption by the dems in the Federal Judiciary.

Without irony.

Fernandinande said...

The radiator should be called a convector.

Saint Croix said...

Did Blackmun actually discuss abortion in his nomination hearing?

No.

And they're still not talking about it. Although now it's the elephant in the room. Back then it wasn't a Supreme Court issue at all, until they made it one.

Saint Croix said...

When the Senators and the Judges say "little guy"

what they mean is

"little bank account"

khesanh0802 said...

When Al Franken is all you've got you are really in trouble.

Birkel said...

@ khesanh0802

When all you have is an Al Franken, every problem is a hooker you have to nail.

I am not Laslo.

buwaya said...

Trumpit,
I speak for all the atavistic prigs out there -
The best people in both Western and Eastern civilization were atavistic prigs. It goes back to Cato the elder and Confucius.
All civilization is built on the solid bedrock created by atavistic prigs. Sine qua non.

SukieTawdry said...

Liberals drive me nuts with their contention that a jurist should be evaluated on the basis of his empathy for the "little guy." Obama was one of the worst in this regard. Al Franken was once a clown; he still is. Many Democrats would like him to run for president. I agree.

Saint Croix said...

Specifically, what liberals mean by "little guy" is

"adult with a little bank account"

the word "little" is not a reference to the size of a human being

but a reference instead to his financial stature

it's a very basic idea from Marx that you ought to run all of law through the prism of economics

(we get these assholes on the right as well)

and so, for instance, in a contract dispute

a leftist would say that you rule for the "little guy"

the guy with less money

David Baker said...

The question about thermostats:

In winter, you generally bypass the thermostat completely - by simply running a heater-hose around the thermostat assembly - thereby eliminating the control. This way the cab is always "heated," even when the water temp is 100-degrees or lower - which is not unusual in cold weather - at idle. This is particularly applicable if you're using the sleeper.

In a pinch (ie company truck), however, a few tools will accomplish the same result using the existing set-up - by rerouting the heater-hose directly to the heater.

Unknown said...

Gorsuch is very smooth, a bit too eager, makes one suspect his sincerity, but I may be wrong. Overall he seems a decent sort of man, too bad his appointment was stolen from Merrick Garland. Democrats should not forget this.

Saint Croix said...

Instead of making the boring Republican point that sometimes a judge should rule for the big guy who has more money

it might be helpful to point out that not everything should be reduced to money

Lipperman said...

“The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle,” Gorsuch wrote. “There’s simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid.”

The truck driver was cold, so he decided to take a nap.

Fortunately for Al Franken, he did not slip into unconsciencness and succumb to hypothermia.
When he woke up few hours later, he thought his life was in danger. But rather than lighting an emergency flare to warm up by, or flagging down a passing vehicle in which he could warm up for just a little while, the captain of this 18-wheeler got out of his cab to unplug brake lines, power, air lines, manually jacked up the trailer - an incredible feat of calisthenics considering his condition - and abandoned ship.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Blogger SukieTawdry said...
Liberals drive me nuts with their contention that a jurist should be evaluated on the basis of his empathy for the "little guy."

Well, except when the little guy is struggling to pay his deductibles under Obamacare. Or when the little guy loses his coal mining job. Or when the little guy's bakery goes under because he won't bake a cake for a gay wedding. Or when the little guy's daughter is murdered by an illegal alien.

Certainly not when the little guy votes for Trump as a result.

Not much empathy for them then.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Gorsuch is very smooth, a bit too eager, makes one suspect his sincerity,..."

Yes, a Hillary supporter just wrote that.

Without irony.

Known Unknown said...

Kudos to the Dems for finding 1 decision out of 2,700+ that could be used to taint Gorsuch as an uncaring corporate stooge.

Please ignore the 15 or so other decisions he readily recalled to Senator Feinstein (who didn't do a damn shred of homework and looked stupid AF up there) that prove otherwise.

Birkel said...

@ Drago

Much more sincere sounding if you drop your r's and g's and throw in an ain't, e.g., phonetically, "I ain't no ways tard."

Crazy Jane said...

There are a couple things I like about Gorsuch.

1. He makes decisions based on law and reason, not emotion. It should be obvious, but it's rare these days.

2. If Trump oversteps his mandate, Gorsuch will rule against him without hesitation, same as for any other office holder or high apparatchik.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Overall he seems a decent sort of man, too bad his appointment was stolen from Merrick Garland. Democrats should not forget this."

LOL

"forget this"?

Your guys INVENTED the very idea of "this"!

The Biden Rule in Joe Bidens own words (1992):

"..the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

If that's not enough: Li'l Chuckie Schumer in 2007: ”We should reverse the presumption of confirmation… we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,” he argued. “They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

Not to mention Harry Reid and the dems already having gone nuclear everywhere else.

Poor Unknown and her pals really thought they had finally established a political structure where the left would never ever lose again and they let their fascist masks begin to fully slip.

And that is how you got Trump and that is how you are getting Gorsuch.

Couldn't happen to nicer bunch of communists.

Henry said...

When that thermostat fails it can do so either in the on or off position. In this case it malfunctioned causing the heater to not draw heat from the engine into the cab.

This is not established. The case evidence reports that the APU was not functioning. It says nothing about a thermostat. The Case Opinion states:

While waiting for the repair truck, Maddin discovered that his
auxiliary power unit (“APU” or “bunk heater”) was not working and there was no
heat in the cab of the truck.


(This is a little weird since while an APU may power a bunk heater, it is a more general system and doesn't necessarily HAVE to power a bunk heater.)

So it is unclear why Maddin required the APU to heat the cab instead of idling the engine.

Chuck said...

Big Mike said...
The other day I discovered that Dianne Feinstein, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, never even attended law school. Yesterday the questioning was taken up by Al Franken, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not attend law school either. Are Democrats so unserious about government that they can't be bothered to put people knowledgeable about the law on the Senate Judiciary Committee?


Big Mike and urbane legend; I really wish that I could agree with you. I might have beaten you to the same criticism of the Democrats, if only it were true.

Because the Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, is an Iowa farmer who never spent a day in law school.


Bruce Hayden said...

Funny thing is that Gorsuch's biggest threat to the Dems and the administrative staff state is sitting out in the open - his questioning of Chevron deference. It essentially means that we are supposed to trust that the bureaucrats are honest, and have interpreted the statutes properly that is the basis for their rule making. No surprise that the son of the woman who went to DC to try to blow up the EPA questions administrative dispassion and honesty.

This reminds me of a GF, who had been working for the EPA at the time, and left, ultimately quitting as a result of Gorsuch mater taking over there, as did many of her colleagues. She ultimately went to law school and became an environmental (wacko) attorney.

Gahrie said...

@Althouse:

1) Do you think those who wrote and passed the Bill of Rights intended to create a right to sexual privacy? Or did judges take the Bill of Rights and twist it to mean whatever it would need to mean to allow them to create a right to sexual privacy?

2) Do you think those who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment intended to create a right to sexual privacy? Or did judges take the 14th Amendment and twist it to mean whatever it would need to mean to allow them to create a right to sexual privacy?

3) How about the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship?

Chuck said...

I haven't finished gloating about the fact that in yesterday's questioning by Senator Blumenthal, Judge Gorsuch confirmed that it was true that back in February, Gorsuch had termed Trump's personal criticism of federal judges ("so-called judge" and "Mexican judge') as "disheartening and demoralizing."

I brought it up in last night's "arches" post, here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=4559107408533448343

I took all kinds of shit on that topic in February, and as it turns out (I never for a moment doubted it), I was right, and Senator Blumenthal was right and Judge Gorsuch was honest and consistent. And Trump was wrong.

Gahrie said...

Oh c'mon now...Chuckles isn't even trying anymore....

Someone criticizes Democrats and Chuckles leaps to their defense by attacking a Republican?

Unknown said...

"2. If Trump oversteps his mandate, Gorsuch will rule against him without hesitation, same as for any other office holder or high apparatchik."

I hope you're right, I tend to think he would too.

hombre said...

"The Democrats on the committee know there's no stopping him, so what are they doing?"

They are playing to the moonbats and confirming the suspicions of rational people that they are cut from the same cloth as the hysterical leftmediaswine, the pussyhat people and the campus arsonists.

In Franken's case, he is establishing himself as the Court Jester.

Chuck said...

Just to drive Gahrie crazy, I want to say (repeat, actually) this point about the Gorsuch hearing yesterday...

In Senator Al Franken's efforts to demonize Gorsuch, Franken waded through Gorsuch's history as a young lawyer, and as a lower level DoJ lawyer, and as a lower-level Bush campaign worker.

The idea was to show that privately, Gorsuch has a whole lot of partisan Republican ideologue in him.

It worked; Franken proved it, to my satisfaction. I was delighted; I think there is always the fear among us Republicans and Federalist Society members that a Republican president might nominate another Souter. And what yesterday proved to me was that Gorsuch would never be another Souter. And that the chances of his being another Scalia were quite good. I could not have been happier.

It was wonderful. Thanks, Al!

Birkel said...

@ So called Chuck

Now what?

Matthew Sablan said...

It Trump oversteps, that the entirety of DC and the media would check him is one of the best things about his presidency compared to the way they let Obama wield executive authority.

Birkel said...

Does anybody actually believe criticism of another judge disheartened and demoralized Gorsuch? I find that farfetched beyond reason.

I think he is saying the things that improve his chances of joining the Court.

Saint Croix said...

Interesting op-ed in the NYT talks about Gorsuch and the word "person."

mockturtle said...

Professes Chuck: I think there is always the fear among us Republicans and Federalist Society members...

:-D Not only is Chuckles the Clown a Lifelong Republican but he is also a Federalist Society member. Right.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

If I understand things correctly, the Left firmly believes Justice should be blind except in cases where one party is a "little guy," in which case Justice gets to peek.
That's stupid, but I guess it's at least a rule.

My problem, though, is that it doesn't seem like the Left really even believes that. There are lots of cases where the Left wants to crush the little guy--if you're a little baker, or the literal Little Sisters of the Poor, or some little guy who wants to own a firearm to protect his little house and little family up against the big bad Federal Government...well let's just say I don't remember the Left sticking up for the little guy in those kinds of cases.

So I guess the rule is something like: Justice should be blind except in cases where one of the parties is a particular type of little guy (that type being the one that Leftists happen to favor). That, see, is not a rule at all. That's not Justice, and it's not really law.

To shorten up a bit: all this talk about "the little guy" is a gigantic load of bullshit.

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Does anybody actually believe criticism of another judge disheartened and demoralized Gorsuch? I find that farfetched beyond reason.

I think he is saying the things that improve his chances of joining the Court.


Well since Gorsuch said it once on the spur of the moment in his first ever conversation with Blumenthal, and then carefully chose to repeat those very same words on the record in a nationally-televised confirmation hearing for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, I am going to go with, "Gorsuch meant it."

But that isn't even the issue.

The issue is that for whatever twisted reason, Trump felt obliged to Tweet out his contention that Blumenthal mischaracterized Gorsuch. And to prove it, Trump dredged up the old embarrassment about Blumenthal wrongly claiming Vietnam war-veteran status when his was only Vietnam war era status.

It really isn't such a big deal, what Gorsuch thinks about judicial independence in two adjectives.

The big deal is Donald Trump and his lying, fictional, bullying, offensive Twitter account.

AllenS said...

Would someone please provide me with a link to the actual court case? Or, was the court case not appealed? I've worked on a lot of truck/car heaters, and know how/why they work. I have some serious questions about what has been written/stated by just about everyone here.

Chuck said...

mockturtle said...
Professes Chuck: I think there is always the fear among us Republicans and Federalist Society members...

:-D Not only is Chuckles the Clown a Lifelong Republican but he is also a Federalist Society member. Right.


I think you and I should meet, at one of our next functions. How hard would it be, for you to travel to Lansing, Michigan?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I haven't finished gloating about the fact that in yesterday's questioning by Senator Blumenthal, Judge Gorsuch confirmed that it was true that back in February, Gorsuch had termed Trump's personal criticism of federal judges ("so-called judge" and "Mexican judge') as "disheartening and demoralizing."

I wouldn't start gloating. We don't know WHY Gorsuch finds it disheartening. He didn't cast blame on anyone, but merely stated his disheartened feeling about the situation.

*Is is because he thinks that the judges in question area above criticism?

*Is it because he feels that criticizing a judge by a public official is a terrible thing that diminishes the judiciary?

*Is it because he feels that the judge in question has actually done something non-judicial bringing disrepute and demoralizing him about his chosen profession?

*Is it because the public official is stooping to criticize the judge and demeaning the office of the official?

*Is it because the whole bunch of them are acting like bratty children?

*All of the above?

There can be all sorts of things that make a situation "disheartening".

I once caught my daughter lying to my face about some events that happened at a slumber party. I was very disheartened about the whole thing. She lied to me. She didn't do the bad things but the bad things happened and she didn't do anything about it. I thought I had taught her better. I failed as a parent. Our trust in each other was broken and had to be repaired.

Very demoralizing and disheartening for complex reasons. Gloating about what you THINK is in the mind of someone else is quite foolish.

Chuck said...

AllenS said...
Would someone please provide me with a link to the actual court case? Or, was the court case not appealed? I've worked on a lot of truck/car heaters, and know how/why they work. I have some serious questions about what has been written/stated by just about everyone here.


Of course it was appealed; that is how Judge Gorsuch heard it. He is an appellate judge.

Anyway, the case is a tricky cite because claimant Alphonse Maddin wasn't in the caption. It was an appeal of an administrative proceeding. With the name of his employer, Trans Am Trucking, in the caption as the appellant.

Here it is:

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf

Unknown said...

"Of course it was appealed; that is how Judge Gorsuch heard it. He is an appellate judge."

Chuckling.

Chuck said...

Dust Bunny Queen:

Did you watch the hearing? Did you see the interchange between Blumenthal and Gorsuch?

To the extent that Gorsuch is getting any credit for defending judicial independence, he is doing it against Donald Trump:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-criticize-judges-gorsuch-calls-disheartening-article-1.3005156

Chuck said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
If I understand things correctly, the Left firmly believes Justice should be blind except in cases where one party is a "little guy," in which case Justice gets to peek.
That's stupid, but I guess it's at least a rule.

My problem, though, is that it doesn't seem like the Left really even believes that. There are lots of cases where the Left wants to crush the little guy--if you're a little baker, or the literal Little Sisters of the Poor, or some little guy who wants to own a firearm to protect his little house and little family up against the big bad Federal Government...well let's just say I don't remember the Left sticking up for the little guy in those kinds of cases.

So I guess the rule is something like: Justice should be blind except in cases where one of the parties is a particular type of little guy (that type being the one that Leftists happen to favor). That, see, is not a rule at all. That's not Justice, and it's not really law.

To shorten up a bit: all this talk about "the little guy" is a gigantic load of bullshit.


I have to tell you how glad I am that you didn't shorten that post. Every word of it was great.

Danno said...

Blogger Tarrou said...I don't understand the truck driver's choice. Heat in a vehicle works whether you are moving or not. The engine just has to be running. If he could drive it, he could just run it and have the heat on. There's no logical connection between avoiding freezing to death and driving the truck away from the trailer.

Like the truck driver in the court case, if today's Democrats were the only people in the U.S., absolutely nothing of importance could be accomplished. They would freeze (or die of heat) in the dark, while trying to figure out why their smartphones and PCs were not working. And they would starve too, because food doesn't originate at Whole Foods. The Can't Do party.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "nd to prove it, Trump dredged up the old embarrassment about Blumenthal wrongly claiming Vietnam war-veteran status when his was only Vietnam war era status."

LOL

Sorry Chuckie, Blumenthal didn't just "wrongly claim" it, he LIED about it. Multiple times.

My my, good old "lifelong republican" Chuck seems quite willing to "soften" the terms when it comes to leftist lies.

Unexpectedly!

Chuck said...

Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "nd to prove it, Trump dredged up the old embarrassment about Blumenthal wrongly claiming Vietnam war-veteran status when his was only Vietnam war era status."

LOL

Sorry Chuckie, Blumenthal didn't just "wrongly claim" it, he LIED about it. Multiple times.

My my, good old "lifelong republican" Chuck seems quite willing to "soften" the terms when it comes to leftist lies.

Unexpectedly!


So let's get this straight. Blumenthal's lie was several years ago, about something occurring decades ago. Before he had any notion of public office.

Trump's lie was about something that happened last month, while he was president, and which pertains to the most important thing that is happening in Washington right now.

Do you have any fucking clue how happy it makes me, to rub your miserable nose in this fight? Keep it up. I love this one.

And I don't need to, nor do I care about, defending Blumenthal. I have never supported him and I will assuredly never cast a vote for him. I just wanted to explore what a sleazy, decrepit move it was on Trump's part to barge into that controversy with such an ironic claim. Ironic in the sense that Trump's own Vietnam-era draft dodging ought to shut anybody up if they had to explain that. But lacking any self-control or personal decency, it just doesn't seem to be a problem for Trump.

Brando said...

"The Democrats on the committee know there's no stopping him, so what are they doing?"

Playing to their base for fundraising and turnout for 2018. That's what most of everything Congress does is about.

AllenS said...

Thanks, Chuck.

I get it now. Although the article doesn't state this fact, the trucks' heater (from the motor) must have worked. If it didn't, after his sleeping inside the cab in the cold, his breath would have frosted the inside of the windows, making it impossible to see to drive without the defroster on. It was the sleeper area heater that was broken. He couldn't use the heat from the motor, because HE had missed the place to purchase gas.

I would have fired his ass too.

Todd said...

Birkel said...
@ khesanh0802

When all you have is an Al Franken, every problem is a young hooker you have to nail.

I am not Laslo.

3/22/17, 9:57 AM


Fixed it for you...

Bruce Hayden said...

I do wonder if Gorsuch's questioning of Chevreon Deference is why he was the one picked. Scalia, apparently, was fine with it. But, judicially, it is the one judicial doctrine that has allowed, if not encouraged, the growth of the administrative state.

Think of what the Obama Administration was doing. They classified CO2 as an air pollutant, allowing the EPA to ultimately control and limit all fossil fuel use in the country (which is absurd on its faith - CO2 is essential for life, and higher CO2 concentrations result in more plant growth). It required buying into CAGW fake science. Allowed, thanks to Chebron, judges defer to agency expertise. Ditto for their extending of Wetlands to cover private land that had been, once, for a short period of time, under water. Obama's immigration orders also, mostly, got Chevron deference, except when blatantly violating the law. The Obamacare mandates, including the requirement that nuns have contraceptive coverage. Presumably, even the EO that opened up the NSA raw data to other agencies (and may have contributed to the unmasking of Flynn for talking to the Russian ambassador). The Obama Admin nitration, with its political appointees, and a sympathetic bureaucracy, looked at the laws on the books, and then issued regulations in a myriad of areas that pushed well beyond what the drafters of the laws ever intended. Which is why it is crucial that the Upreme Court start to roll back Chevron Deference, and, thus, ultimately, the reach of the Administrative State.

So, I have no doubt that Neil Gorsuch grew up with tales of administrative overreach at the kitchen table, given his mother, just like I grew up with stories about mortgage lending, foreclosures, wills, etc, at my father's, given his law practice and connections to the banking no industry. Cutting back on Chevron Deference is essential if the Trump Administration is going to keep its campaign promises to roll back the size and reach of the federal govt. and this may well have played into Trump's decision to pick Judge Gorsuch out of the field of stellar candidates he had.

Chuck said...

Brando said...
"The Democrats on the committee know there's no stopping him, so what are they doing?"

Playing to their base for fundraising and turnout for 2018. That's what most of everything Congress does is about.


Not sure I agree, but I won't fight the sentiment.

Also at stake is the calculation over a filibuster. I am going to bet on "no filibuster." And 56 to 58 votes to confirm Gorsuch.

Chuck said...

AllenS said...
Thanks, Chuck.

I get it now. Although the article doesn't state this fact, the trucks' heater (from the motor) must have worked. If it didn't, after his sleeping inside the cab in the cold, his breath would have frosted the inside of the windows, making it impossible to see to drive without the defroster on. It was the sleeper area heater that was broken. He couldn't use the heat from the motor, because HE had missed the place to purchase gas.

I would have fired his ass too.

Yeah; I think yours is a valuable distillation of the facts.

Also; there is an element to this case that is like the Lily Leadbetter case. In Leadbetter, the plaintiff attorneys chose a particular cause of action under a particular federal employment statute, and it turned out to have been a bad strategic choice. In this case, they originally brought a whistleblower statute claim. It's too detailed to get into here. But for anyone with the patience to read the 100+ pages of all of the opinions majority and dissents in both cases, it would be illuminating on the foibles of active lawyering in the administrative and district courts.

Chuck said...

Bruce Hayden said...
I do wonder if Gorsuch's questioning of Chevreon Deference is why he was the one picked. Scalia, apparently, was fine with it. But, judicially, it is the one judicial doctrine that has allowed, if not encouraged, the growth of the administrative state.

Ask Leonard Leo. Judge Gorsuch was his choice, probably more than anybody's. Leonard is the kind of guy who, once Gorsuch is safely confirmed for life, might actually give you a straight, honest, intelligent answer.

You may have to join the Federalist Society and go to one of their functions, to ask him.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "So let's get this straight. Blumenthal's lie was several years ago, about something occurring decades ago. Before he had any notion of public office."

LOL

So now "lifelong republican" Chuck invokes a statute of limitations for how long a horrendous lie about military service in Vietnam, and all that comes with that kind of lie, is time-bound and cannot be used against someone....as long as that someone is a Dem.


"lifelong republican" Chuck will contort himself in whatever shape he has to in defending his beloved "Stolen Valor" Dems.

Thanks "lifelong republican" Chuck (who, by the way, did not serve 'cuz the Draft was no longer in effect, or something!)

LOL

Chuck said...

That's right, Drago.

I didn't serve in the military in the late 1970's, because there was no draft.

Donald Trump didn't serve in the military in the 1960's or 70's, when there was a draft, because he dodged the draft. He used up a handful of student deferments and then faked having heel spurs.

Richard Blumenthal served in the U.S. Marine Corps reserves, in the Vietnam era, but not on active duty in a Vietnam-theater deployment.

And all of this comes up because Trump, desperate (why?!?) to deflect from Judge Gorsuch's description of Trump's trashtalk on federal judges as "disheartening and demoralizing", decided to go after Blumenthal personally.

But now we know that Blumenthal was right. Blumenthal didn't "misrepresent" anything. It was Trump, as usual, doing all of the misrepresenting, and doing it in the most reckless, insulting and Trumpiest way possible.

You want me to devote the day to hammering this point? I'd be pleased.

Bill said...

Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity.

Which you traded for a career that produces it.

Drago said...

I'm sorry to interrupt you while you are in full Lefty Democrat "Stolen Valor" Defense Mode, but would you mind posting a link to any comment by Trump where he lied about his military service like your newest pal Blumenthal?

Thanks.

mockturtle said...

Chuck shows his true colors almost every day and yet expects us to believe his 'lifelong Republican' twaddle.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and Defender of Stolen Valor Dems Chuck: ".. now we know that Blumenthal was right. Blumenthal didn't "misrepresent" anything."

What a sad lie in support of your beloved Dems.

We know that Blumenthal did indeed lie about his service.

Just like Tom Harkin who you no doubt will be defending next.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I doubt Gorsuch would apply his same definition of "operating" to a drunk driver in a running vehicle that had pulled off alongside the rode.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Which party was the "little guy" in the Kelo case, again? So tough to keep up.

Drago said...

For that matter who was the "little guy" in Citizens United?

Chuck said...

No; I am not going to dig up Trump's draft Extract of Classification record. It's online, at the SmokingGun. Look it up for yourself. And then the timelines and narratives about how Trump got himself to 4-F status on 2/1/72.

This isn't about Trump's or Blumenthal's military records and that is not today's narrative.

Today's narrative is about the fact that Judge Gorsuch sure as hell used "disheartening" and "demoralizing" to describe his feelings about Trump's demonizing federal judges.

Trump lied about that in his Tweet claiming that Blumenthal "mischaracterized" Gorsuch.

You girls can work on whatever narrative you want. I'll work on mine. I don't care if you like me, or believe me, or care. I don't care about you.

I'm having a good ol' time today all on my own, spiking this football.

Amadeus 48 said...

Trumpit needs to stop drinking before noon.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I submit that empathy so selective as to apply only to favored groups and allies shouldn't really be called empathy. Wanting to help your friends and harm your enemies is an old moral framework--Socrates himself attacked it (against Polemarchus, I think)--so if that's what the Left considers morality then their belief at least has a long history. The "help your friends" part of that, though, isn't really empathy.
If "the little guy" means "someone I like and approve of" then wanting a judge/justice to always find for that party (despite what the law itself might say) then that desire isn't empathy for the little guy, it's just special pleading for one's own side.

There's nothing wrong, in the abstract, with sticking up with your friends. It does not follow from that, though, that it's morally correct to bend the law, justice, or the power of the State itself to benefit people you happen to like (and harm people you happen to not like). That's just applying power using identity politics as a guide. Nothing morally praiseworthy about that.

Birkel said...

@ Chuck

Why are you so credulous when it comes to Gorsuch actually being disheartened and demoralized? I would not support a judge so weak willed as to be affected by the words of a crazy man like Trump. That does not convey a message of judicial temperament, does it?

I know you will use anything to hand against Trump. But think through the second order implications of what you are saying.

Achilles said...

Blogger Michael K said...
"I agree about leaving trumpit alone.

There is something wrong with him. Besides being a leftist and I can't even be sure of that."

Trumpit is a moby.

Drago said...

Multiple "lifelong republicans" in one!

Early Thread "lifelong republican" Chuck: "The issue is that for whatever twisted reason, Trump felt obliged to Tweet out his contention that Blumenthal mischaracterized Gorsuch. And to prove it, Trump dredged up the old embarrassment about Blumenthal wrongly claiming Vietnam war-veteran status when his was only Vietnam war era status."

Middle Thread "lifelong republican" Chuck: "You want me to devote the day to hammering this point? I'd be pleased."

Later Thread "lifelong republican" Chuck: "This isn't about Trump's or Blumenthal's military records and that is not today's narrative."

LOL

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

"I took all kinds of shit on that topic in February, and as it turns out (I never for a moment doubted it)"

That is because you supported a judge that was a member of "la Raza" or The Race. In other words the judge is explicitly a racist and you argued on his behalf. Of course you were never "wrong" nor doubted yourself. You are a disingenuous person like most leftists.

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
@ Chuck

Why are you so credulous when it comes to Gorsuch actually being disheartened and demoralized? I would not support a judge so weak willed as to be affected by the words of a crazy man like Trump. That does not convey a message of judicial temperament, does it?

I know you will use anything to hand against Trump. But think through the second order implications of what you are saying.


I am certainly not being credulous, in the sense that Gorsuch said it, and he meant it. And that Trump's denial, or claim that Gorsuch was "misrepresented," was bullshit.

I expect that Gorsuch, Leonard Leo, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley and John Roberts all have opinions about Trump along similar lines, that Trump is, as you say, "a crazy man." I think Trump is a crazy man too. I imagine that they all have the lowest of expectations, and simply hope that Trump can be successfully managed.

Steering Trump to Judge Gorsuch was successful management. Very successful.

Trump's unsupervised Tweets about the "Mexican judge" and the "so-called judge" represented management failures.

Gorsuch's saying that he found that "disheartening" and "demoralizing" is, as I say, not the big story. They're just a couple of adjectives. Not much of a reflection of anything other than agreement, between a very conservative and ideological judge, and a very experienced liberal Democrat senator, on the fact that the dumb neophyte Trump crossed a line that they would both agree shouldn't be crossed.

Again, the big point in all of this is Trump's lie. The lie that Blumenthal "misrepresented" Gorsuch. Blumenthal, for whatever you may think about him, did not misrepresent Gorsuch's reaction to the Trump TrashTweets.

Drago said...

Today's Narrative:
Trump advances conservative agenda.
"Lifelong republican" Chuck attacks Trump and defends indefensible Democrat(s).

So, you know, the same narrative as every other day.

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
Chuck said...

"I took all kinds of shit on that topic in February, and as it turns out (I never for a moment doubted it)"

That is because you supported a judge that was a member of "la Raza" or The Race. In other words the judge is explicitly a racist and you argued on his behalf. Of course you were never "wrong" nor doubted yourself. You are a disingenuous person like most leftists.


Oh fuck you. I'm not playing that deflection game with you today, sport.

I didn't defend that judge. I simply maintained that Trump was an ignorant ass for calling the judge, who was born in Indiana outside of Chicago and who went to IU, a "Mexican judge."

Trump is still an ignorant ass, and that episode was just one of a thousand.

Remember, Trump agreed -- stipulated -- to pay $25 million to settle that case.

Todd said...

WOW, so apparently Obama did wiretap Trump...

Trump team communications captured by intelligence community surveillance, Nunes says

So first he did, then he didn't, now he did again. It is enough to make one's head spin!

Unknown said...

The democrat party has become just like franken, ridiculous comedians.

Chuck said...

Because I don't want to let my enemies here detract from the narrative of the day, here again is the Trump Tweet from February:

"Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829660612452036608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Ftrump-tweets-on-sen-richard-blumenthal-after-gorsuch-meeting%2F

Nope. Senator Blumenthal did not misrepresent what Judge Gorsuch told him. Trump lied.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

"Oh fuck you. I'm not playing that deflection game with you today, sport."

But you are... everything you are doing on this thread is by definition deflection.

"I didn't defend that judge. I simply maintained that Trump was an ignorant ass for calling the judge, who was born in Indiana outside of Chicago and who went to IU, a "Mexican judge.""

The judge was a member of La Raza. The judge declared it in bold capital letters by being a part of that organization he stood for Mexican supremacy. An organization that is separatist as well as explicitly racist.

"Trump is still an ignorant ass, and that episode was just one of a thousand."

And you are still an ignorant leftist ass, and this episode is just one of a thousand.

"Remember, Trump agreed -- stipulated -- to pay $25 million to settle that case."

If you were a little more intelligent and/or intellectually honest you might be able to come up with a reason why he did that. He was going to win that case despite the obviously partisan judge on that case.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" and Defender of "Stolen Valor" Dems Chuck: "Because I don't want to let my enemies here detract from the narrative of the day, here again is the Trump Tweet from February:

"Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?""

Trump is correct. Stolen Valor" Liar and new Chuck pal Richard Blumenthal did indeed lie about service in Vietnam.

Unexpectedly.

Chuck said...

You really are an unusually nasty fuckhead, Achilles. An especially low-grade asshole.

You, and the pro-Trump assclowns like you, have already been shot down on Judge Gonazalo Curiel's membership in "La Raza."

I'll let the Washington Post deconstruct it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/?utm_term=.524774c4d108

In short, your blandly misleading claim that Curiel was a member of a radical Latino organization called "La Raza" is a bit like mistaking the Ku Klux Klan for the Wu Tang Klan.

People; you see my views posted here on Judge Gorsuch, his nomination, his hearing, his likely confirmation, and the prospect of his being on the court.

You simply cannot find anything "leftist" that I have E-V-E-R written on Althouse comments pages.

It is only my criticism of Trump that causes a select few -- very few -- idiots, like Achilles, to accuse me of being a "leftist."

Which sort of tells you everything about them.

Unknown said...

"WOW, so apparently Obama did wiretap Trump...

Trump team communications captured by intelligence community surveillance, Nunes says"
-----------------
"(CNN)House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's personal communications may have been picked up by investigators through "incidental collection."

This is a normal, incidental collection, based on what I could collect," Nunes said. "This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
------------

FullMoon said...

Any cocksucker who pretends he was under fire in Viet Nam with drafted 18 year olds who were scared to death, killed, maimed, blinded and scarred for life deserves to be fucked in the ass by aids infested gorillas, shit on by crazy San Francisco homeless, and made to drink piss from New York crack whores.

Anybody bringing up Blumenthals lie with even a minimal attempt to deflect or make excuses for it is only slightly less despicable.

Fuck you Chuck.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "People; you see my views posted here on Judge Gorsuch, his nomination, his hearing, his likely confirmation, and the prospect of his being on the court"

Yes, we all see what you claim to believe here, about a nomination neither you nor your dem friends can stop, and the confirmation of Gorsuch is unstoppable at this point, so, it costs you nothing, nothing at all, to be "in favor of this".

And yet, every active fight, every active narrative debate, every active conflict where the outcome is still in the offing finds you on the rhetorical and operational side of the left. Further, there is no democrat in the wrong that you will not rise to defend and/or whose actions you will not minimize.

Well played "lifelong republican", well played.

Chuck said...

Drago:

TRUMP LIED, WHEN HE TWEETED THAT SENATOR BLUMENTHAL "MISREPRESENTED" JUDGE GORSUCH. BLUMENTHAL DID NOT MISREPRESENT GORSUCH. YESTERDAY, UNDER OATH AND ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, JUDGE GORSUCH SPECIFICALLY RE-USED THOSE SAME WORDS. VINDICATING BLUMENTHAL ON THAT TOPIC. DEFYING TRUMP.

Now; I want you to picture me, jabbing my finger into your sternum with each syllable of those sentences.

Drago said...

Nunes: "This is a normal, incidental collection, based on what I could collect," Nunes said. "This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

Wink wink......

And remember, "lifelong republican" Chucks beloved democrats kept this investigation secret and confined to ONLY democrat insiders within the Executive Branch right up until .....monday of this week.

Hmmmm, I wonder if anyone can surmise why a democrat appointee who is secretly surveilling the oppositions President-Elect in what is clearly looking more and more like a politically inspired "investigation" would act so diligently to keep Congressional Oversight members of the opposite party IN THE DARK?

Well, I think we all see where this is heading, don't we?

"lifelong republican" Chuck is going to be working triple-shifts to figure out ways to defend the dems on this one.

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
Any cocksucker who pretends he was under fire in Viet Nam with drafted 18 year olds who were scared to death, killed, maimed, blinded and scarred for life deserves to be fucked in the ass by aids infested gorillas, shit on by crazy San Francisco homeless, and made to drink piss from New York crack whores.

Anybody bringing up Blumenthals lie with even a minimal attempt to deflect or make excuses for it is only slightly less despicable.

Fuck you Chuck.


You've got a rather selective notion of Vietnam era chickenshits.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Now; I want you to picture me, jabbing my finger into your sternum with each syllable of those sentences."

I'm sure your parole officer can envision it sufficiently for both of us.

What's clear is that you have now veered fully into full-blown defense mode of a Vietnam Era "Stolen Valor" LIAR democrat.

Unexpectedly.

Michael K said...

"then faked having heel spurs."

We specifically test for heel spurs by having recruits walk on their heels, just like we test for Osgood-Schlatters disease by having them knee walk.

Heel spurs are disqualifying.

Now, we have kids lying to get in instead of lying to get out. You can't fake not having heel spurs. Even if you want to get in, not out.

X-rays were invented about 1906, chuck.

FullMoon said...

Chuck vomits
You've got a rather selective notion of Vietnam era chickenshits.


Being afraid of going to war is slightly different than pretending to have been to war and basking in the "glory", sympathy, appreciation, and respect of an actual warrior.

Keep it up, maggot. Keep defending Blumenthal, like an asshole, or man up, admit Blumenthal is despicable, and apologize for minimizing his behavior.

Drago said...

There is no evidence Trump faked anything. Even the lefty crazies at Politifact agreed with that.

However, we know for a fact that Blumenthal is a disgusting "Stolen Valor" idiot.

And, "lifelong republican" Chuck, true to form, attacks Trump and defends Blumenthal.

Gee. I. Did. Not. See. That. Coming.

Unknown said...

"Hmmmm, I wonder if anyone can surmise why a democrat appointee who is secretly surveilling the oppositions President-Elect in what is clearly looking more and more like a politically inspired "investigation" would act so diligently to keep Congressional Oversight members of the opposite party IN THE DARK?"

Good try Disinformation Troll Drago, but wrong. Trump may have been caught on intercepts with foreign agents incidentally which prompted a deeper investigation based on what was being discussed.

How much do the Ruskies pay you? Just kidding... maybe.

mockturtle said...

Chuck blusters: You really are an unusually nasty fuckhead, Achilles. An especially low-grade asshole.

Whereas you, Chuck, are a typical fuckhead and a high-grade asshole.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
You really are an unusually nasty fuckhead, Achilles. An especially low-grade asshole.

This is how people losing an argument usually start out. You are such a cliche.

You, and the pro-Trump assclowns like you, have already been shot down on Judge Gonazalo Curiel's membership in "La Raza."

He was a member of La Raza. Thanks for admitting that.

I'll let the Washington Post deconstruct it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/?utm_term=.524774c4d108


Yeah the WaPo. They are good for people who want to defend a Mexican supremacist group and members of it.

In short, your blandly misleading claim that Curiel was a member of a radical Latino organization called "La Raza" is a bit like mistaking the Ku Klux Klan for the Wu Tang Klan.

Re-read this sentence then rewrite it in a way that is clear. I think you mean La Raza is not like the KKK. If that is your take on an organization that wants to kick white people out of Southwestern US states and retake them for the native Mexican population have at it.

People; you see my views posted here on Judge Gorsuch, his nomination, his hearing, his likely confirmation, and the prospect of his being on the court.

You simply cannot find anything "leftist" that I have E-V-E-R written on Althouse comments pages.


You are defending The Race and members of that organization.

It is only my criticism of Trump that causes a select few -- very few -- idiots, like Achilles, to accuse me of being a "leftist."

Which sort of tells you everything about them.


You are a really dumb cliche. It is pretty clear you don't understand anything about "them."

exiledonmainstreet said...

You girls can work on whatever narrative you want. I'll work on mine. I don't care if you like me, or believe me, or care. I don't care about you.

I'm having a good ol' time today all on my own, spiking this football.


3/22/17, 12:24 PM

Chuck's level of self -unawareness approaches Inga's.

If you don't care if anybody here likes or believes you, why even bother coming here and writing long comments that most of us simply scroll over most of the time? Just to annoy people? That's called "trolling." You're not here to win anybody over, you just want to broadcast your own superior virtue. Just like sunsong.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...

Good try Disinformation Troll Drago, but wrong. Trump may have been caught on intercepts with foreign agents incidentally which prompted a deeper investigation based on what was being discussed.

You do realize there is a clear pattern of obama using surveillance on people he didn't like?

That Obama is leaving behind a legacy of abusing surveillance powers and the last thing Obama did was executive order 12333 which massively expanded the surveillance state and he promptly handed over to Trump?

I wonder if Trump starts looking at all of the democrats including whomever is going to lose to him in 2020 with these new powers if democrats will be just as blase about this.

Chuck said...

Achilles; you troll.

I did not defend La Raza. For the intelligent readers here, Judge Curiel was not a member of La Raza, which is a leftist/Latino activist organization. A bunch of fuckheads like you mistook his membership in the La Raza lawyers' organization in San Diego, for the leftist organization. Of which Curiel is not and was not a member.

I don't know much more about La Raza. I am not a member; not a defender; not a supporter.

If you readers have any curiosity (I cannot imagine that a troll like Achilles would prompt any serious curiosity), go to that WaPo story. In which they, like me, make no defense of "La Raza." They just point out that people like Achilles who claim that Curiel was a member, are liars.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
Achilles; you troll.

Boring. You tried and succeeded at derailing this thread. "Deflection" as you term it. I just disabused you. But as with everything else repetitive becomes boring. Just like your love of practitioners of sharia law, I will leave you to defend members of "the Race." I have reached my "Chuck quota" for now. We were laughing at you btw, not with you.

I am much more interested in watching unknown defend Obama's surveillance state record and discussions about whether or not Trump should treat democrats like Obama treated republicans.

Chuck said...

So I am a "leftist."

A "defender of sharia law."

In favor of "open borders."

A defender of La Raza.

A Democrat.

Of course, I have never written a word supportive of any of those things. I just get hit with those labels, for pointing out the lies, abuses and recklessness of Donald Trump.

Again, it tells you everything about Trump supporters and nothing about me.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 237   Newer› Newest»