Fresh-off-the-blocks Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) isn’t exactly feeling Supreme Court Justice-nominee Neil Gorsuch. In addition to being California’s former attorney general, she threw in some extra cannon fodder via crafting an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, pontificating on Gorsuch’s assessments of employees’-rights cases.
[Gorsuch’s assessment of Roe V. Wade | Video: courtesy of The Wall Street Journal]
Excerpt from Senator Harris’s article:
“Take the case of Alphonse Maddin, a trucker who got stuck on the road in sub-zero temperatures and abandoned his cargo to seek help. Because he left his truck, his employer fired him. Maddin sued and seven judges ruled in his favor. Only one (Judge Gorsuch) sided with the company. Luckily, Maddin won his case. But had Gorsuch prevailed, it would have been easier for some employers to fire employees without consequence. Imagine that—being fired for trying to save your life.”
Gorsuch’s assessment of the Maddin case:
“A trucker was stranded on the side of the road, late at night, in cold weather, and his trailer brakes were stuck, and [TransAm] fired him for disobeying orders and abandoning its trailer and goods.
It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one.”
That wasn’t Harris’s only weapon in her journalistic arsenal:
“In another case, a college professor named Grace Hwang was diagnosed with cancer. The university provided her a leave of absence to get treatment but refused to extend that leave even though her doctor said she needed more time to get well. Judge Gorsuch called the university’s decision ‘reasonable’ and rejected her lawsuit. Grace died last summer and her family recently wrote, ‘His decision was heartless. It removed the human element from the equation. It did not bring justice.’”
Cruel or not, Gorsuch made an unwavering case to Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA) entailing judges (especially of the US Supreme Court variety) having to examine both sides (the upper hand and lower hand) and be able to interpret the law as set out by the Judiciary Branch—upholding justice isn’t always what’s morally fair. Let’s see any, old judge be that by the book:
“I’d like to convey to you (from the bottom of my heart) is that I am a fair judge.
I have participated in 2,700 opinions over 10 and a half years. And if you want cases where I’ve ruled for the little guy as well as the big guy, there are plenty of them.”
However, Gorsuch’s judicial rhetoric and experience was going to cut it with Senator Harris—her final assessment:
Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination. https://t.co/7SLAOI6MXx
— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) March 24, 2017
[Source: Twitter/Kamala Harris]
But there were those who weren’t exactly backing up Harris on this one:
@SenKamalaHarris You mean he respects the actual law and doesn’t insert his personal interpretations or opinions? It’s like he’s a real judge or something!
— Chelsey (@Chelsie_Elsie) March 24, 2017
@SenKamalaHarris I’m guessing you never really understood why “Lady Justice” is blindfolded?
— Josh Walrath (@JoshDWalrath) March 24, 2017
[Source: Twitter/Josh Walrath]
.@SenKamalaHarris Legalisms, also known as the rule of law, often protect us from amoral power-mad politically ambitious prosecutors.
— Popehat on Tapp (@Popehat) March 24, 2017
[Source: Twitter/Popehat on Tapp]
@SenKamalaHarris If ‘real life’ trumps ‘legalisms’ why do you take an oath to defend the Constitution?
— Mason City Limits (@Heyclammy) March 24, 2017
[Source: Twitter/Mason City Limits]
@SenKamalaHarris That’s his job. Yours is to make the law. If you can’t figure out the difference, resign.
— I Support Calexit (@jbnv) March 24, 2017