Can I help?
$1:
Democrats repeatedly bring up the “frozen trucker” case in which a trucker, who had decided his truck was unsafe to drive in subzero temperatures, unhitched the trailer and drove away, contrary to orders from his bosses — and thus was fired. Two judges ruled that this firing was illegal. Gorsuch, in a dissent, pointed that the law in question only barred trucking companies from firing a driver who refused to operate unsafe equipment.
Gorsuch noted in his dissent: “The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. ... The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not.”
If you read the whole saga, it’s obvious the trucking company was morally wrong to fire the driver. But it’s also crystal clear that the company didn’t violate the law.
Is a judge’s job to discern the law or to rule in favor of the good guy in a story?
Gorsuch once wrote, “A judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.”
And here we see the most important way Gorsuch is the friend of the little guy: He upholds the rule of law, and the rule of law is the little guy’s best friend.
Well-meaning liberals want the law to be flexible so they can accommodate the little guy. But that’s not what happens in real life.
A flexible, living, bendable law will always tend to be bent in the direction of the powerful — in the direction of the prison guard who wields the power to physically dominate an unpopular prisoner, in the direction of the developer and the drug company who wield political connections and grand plans for a widow’s property, and in the direction of a federal government that will trample the voiceless to advance its ideology.
The rule of law doesn’t care if you’re powerful or powerless; it applies to all. Gorsuch has spent his years on the bench reading the law and applying it, without animus or favor. That’s bad news for those, such as New London’s mandarins or the Obama administration’s HHS, who want special treatment. It’s good news for the little guy.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... /99982694/If you read the article you'll see there are other cases where Gorsuch indisputably supported the little guy.
What's happened here is Democrats and their pet media have lassoed a tiny exception where they argue around the edges and virtue signal as the sympathizers of the "frozen trucker." They then pretend there is no counter-point and present their "frozen trucker" exception as the totality of all possible opinions on the subject of Gorsuch's integrity.
You're also required to ignore an obvious contradiction where today's champions of the "frozen trucker" had no problem joining a unanimous vote when Gorsuch, was confirmed by the Senate to his seat on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals without a single dissenting vote.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/01/meet- ... h-in-2006/
CKA Moderator 
CKA Uber 
