amy: that was alphonse maddin. more, we're joined by his attorney in his wrongful termination lawsuit. robert fetter is a labor lawyer, and he joins us from detroit, michigan. welcome to democracy now! this is an astounding case. this happened -- as alphonse maddin said, this case was heard by seven judges. only one ruled against him and that judge was the current supreme court nominee judge gorsuch. can you explain the course that this case took? >> yes. thank you for having me on. this case goes through an administrative proceeding to the department of labor -- that is where it starts initially -- through an investigation of the department of labor, then to a trial before an administrative law judge. the company had appealed our victory at trial to the administrative review board, which found unanimously now in favor. they then appealed to the 10th circuit -- because the trucking company is headquartered in kansas, which is in the 10th circuit. we were assigned a three-judge panel, which included judge gorsuch. a

president, alphonse maddin sought the mercy of the law. the wong family sought the mercy of the law. luke, the autistic child whose school was failing him, sought the mercy of the law. and the man who had the power to see plain sense in their cases, who could rule in their favor and right the wrongs that had been done to them, as other judges did in each of those cases, that man, judge neil gorsuch, said no. i'm voting no on gorsuch for alphonse maddin and workers across the country, for the wong family and for others who don't want to choose between their health and providing for their children, and for the perkins family who loved their children just as they are and want them no less than the opportunities afforded to every other child in america. the american people deserve someone who sees average litigants as more than

the case involved truck driver alphonse maddin, who was fired after he disobeyed a supervisor and abandoned trailer that he was driving, because he was on the verge of freezing to death. this is maddin speaking at a recent event in washington, d.c. >> i was working as a commercial truck driver for transam inincorporated of olatathe, kan. i was s haulining a lo o of mt through the state ofof illinoi. after stopping to resolve a discrepancy of the location to refuel, the brakes on the trailer froze. i contacted my employer and they arranged for a repair unit to come to my locatition. i expected that help would arrive within an hour. i woke three hours later to discover that i could not feel my feet, my skin was burning and cracking, my speech was slurred, and i was having trouble breathing. the temperature at night was roughly 27 degrees fahrhrenheit low zero. the heater in the cabin was not producing heat, an attempt to gauge in the truck was reading -7 degrees below zero. after informing my employer of my physical condition, they responded by telling me to simply hang on. as i sat there phy

judge gorsuch was alone among seven judges to rulule that the companyny s right to fire alphonse maddin we wrap up, we are still with maddin's attorney robert fetter, i want to talk about the timing of judge gorsuch's dissent. when the candidate donald trump gave his list of supreme court justices that he wowould choose if you were to be president, gorsuch was not on that list. thatat was in mamay. bob fetter, the decision was handed out, when was it, that is intended out by judge gorsuch h august 8 8 last yearar on the frozen trucker case. when the second list came out in september, gorsuch was added to trump's list. can yoyou talk abobout the significanance of this?? >> yeah. it certainly is a set of circumstances that after he was nominated, is certainly rang a a bell withe thatat he was not on the initial list. he has this s case on his desk where he can showw just how uncncompassionate he can bee and how far he is able to take e extreme textualilism in order to rule i in favor of a c company and corpororate interest. certainly,y,f i were the chamber of commemerce or other b busines

but first, i want to turn to the truck driver himself, alphonse maddin. he spoke in washington a few days ago at an event organized by senate democrats. >> in january 2009, i was working as a commercial truck driver for transam trucking incorporated of olathe, kansas. i was hauling a load of meat through the state of illinois. after stuffing to resolve the discrepancy of the location refuel, the brakes on the trailer froze. i contacted my employer and they arranged for a repair unit to come to my location. i expected help would arrive within an hour. i woke three hours later to discover that i could not feel my feet, my skin was burning and cracking, my speech was slurred, and i was having trouble breathing. the temperature that night was roughly 27 degrees fahrenheit below zero. the heater in the cabin was not producing heat and the temperature gauge in the truck was reading minus seven degrees below zero. after forming my employer of my physical condition, they responded by telling me to simply hang in there. as i sat there physically suffering in the c

president, alphonse maddin sought the mercy of the law. the wong family sought the mercy of the law. luke, the autistic child whose school was failing him, sought the mercy of the law. and the man who had the power to see plain sense in their cases, who could rule in their favor and right the wrongs that had been done to them, as other judges did in each of those cases, that man, judge neil gorsuch, said no. i'm voting no on gorsuch for alphonse maddin and workers across the country, for the wong family and for others who don't want to choose between their health and providing for their children, and for the perkins family who loved their children just as they are and want them no less than the opportunities afforded to every other child in america. the american people deserve someone who sees average litigants as more than incidental consequences of press dent when that precedent produces an absurd result, whose view of the law is not so cold and so arid as to wring out every last drop of humanity and common sense. it requires only the ba

while driving through illinois in january 2009, the brakes on commercial trucker alphonse maddin's trailer to wait for more than three hours in freezing temperatures for vehicle assistance. as his limbs began to numb from the cold, he decided he could not wait any longer and left the truck's cargo trailer behind, despite his employer's insistence that he stay until a repair team arrived. for this, he was ultimately fired from his job. the case got to the u.s. court of appeals, and it ruled for the truck driver. maddin won it by the vote of 2-1. and yes, gorsuch was the one dissenting vote against the driver. senate democrats have been using this case to portray gorsuch as a judge who more than often not only sides with big companies, but sides even when it's just him voting that way. he'll vote against the little guy. judge gorsuch? i get it, this president's a billionaire whose cabinet is made up of millionaires, so it's no surprise that his supreme court pick would be the lone vote to leave the frost-bitten trucker in the cold, and for that, neil gorsuch, i got you. announcer: get on you

amy: that was alphonse maddin, the truck driver in case involved supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. at tuesdsday's s hearing, senatl franken questioned gorsuch about his dissent in the case. >> there are two safety issues here. one, the possibility of freezing to death or driving with that rig in a very committed very dangerous way. which would you have done now go >> oh, senator, i don't know what i would've done in issues and i don't blame him at all a moment for what he did do. i empathize with them entirely. >> we been talking about this case. you haven't decided what you would have done? you haven't thought about what you would done in the case? >> i thought a lot about it. i totally but dies -- >> please answer the questions. trucks i was not in the man's shoes, but i understand -- >> i would've done exactly what he did. i think everybody would have done exactly what he did. this companyto say is in his rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. that is absurd. now i had

have asked about your opinions in specific cases like that involving the terrible choice facing alphonse maddin between freezing and being fired, you have told us to look at your whole record. when we asked about decisions where you seem to adopt strange interpretations that narrowed laws meant to protect workers safety, you said you're a judge and don't take sides. and that if the statute was to eliminate congress should do better. when we asked about your decision in hobby lobby which found an expansive new right to religious liberty for a corporation that employees 32,000 people, you did not explain how you assessed the terrible impact this decision had for thousands of women who would now be denied access to health care. during my last round of questions, i asked you about your understanding of the influence of politics on the kpigs of the court based on your 2005 article, liberals and lawsuits. it was not an attempt at a gotch you moment or to paint you in an unfair light. it was an attempt to get to the reality that both you and i understand. i wonder how you would approach a kind of toug

judge gorsuch about his opinions in specific cases like that involving the terrible choice facing alphonse maddin between freezing to death or being fired, the judge told us we should look instead at his whole record. when i examined his whole record, i saw too little regard for the real-world impact of his decisions and a refusal to look beyond the words to the meaning and intent of the law, even when his decisions lacked common sense. when we asked about decisions where judge gorsuch seemed to adopt strained interpretations that narrow laws meant to protect worker safety, he said simply that he was a judge and he didn't take sides. yet too many times, his narrow interpretations lifted decisions that were on the side of big corporations and against the side of the little guy. when asked to respond, he said that if we didn't like the result, if we didn't like his decisions, it was because the statute was too limited or unclear and that we, members of congress, should do better. we asked judge gorsuch about his decision in hobby lobby which found an expansive new right to religious liberty for a c

have asked about your opinions in specific cases like that involving the terrible choice facing alphonse maddin between freezing and being fired, you have told us to look at your whole record. when we asked about decisions where you seem to adopt strange interpretations that narrowed laws meant to protect workers safety, you said you're a judge and don't take sides. and that if the statute was to eliminate congress should do better. when we asked about your decision in hobby lobby which found an expansive new right to religious liberty for a corporation that employees 32,000 people, you did not explain how you assessed the terrible impact this decision had for thousands of women who would now be denied access to health care. during my last round of questions, i asked you about your understanding of the influence of politics on the kpigs of the court based on your 2005 article, liberals and lawsuits. it was not an attempt at a gotch you moment or to paint you in an unfair light. it was an attempt to get to the reality that both you and i understand. i wonder how you would approach a kind of toug

he wrote in dissent that trucking company executives were right to fire truck driver alphonse maddin for leaving his trailer in order to save his life. and just last week, we saw another example of how extreme judge gorsuch's views are when the supreme court unanimously rebuked his interpretation of the individual with disabilities act. in the opinion of even justice thomas, the educational rights judge gorsuch would allow to disabled students under the law amounted to no education at all. judge gorsuch's opportunity to disabuse us of these objections was in the hearing process, but he declined to substantively answer question after question. absent a real description of his judicial philosophy, all we have to go on is his record, a record that landed judge gorsuch on the list of the conservative federalist society and heritage foundation. president trump, of course, selected judge gorsuch off these preapproved, conservative lists that he promised he would do during his campaign. to claim, as the majority leader does, that judge gorsuch is simply a neutral judge is belied by his hist