Al Franken vs Girsuch, Franken is correct

Al Franken, the supposed intellectual comedian of he senate steps into the shoe of an ignoramus when he discusses a court case concerning the firing of an employee. The issue was whether the employer had a right to fire an employee for not putting himself under a health risk.  The employee was asked to stay with a broken down shipment in the middle of a frozen night.  

The case concerned a TransAm truck driver, Alphonse Maddin, who claimed he was wrongfully fired after he disregarded a supervisor's instructions to stay with a broken down trailer, despite freezing temperatures outside.Maddin had waited hours in the unheated truck after calling for roadside assistance, and said he grew numb and had slurred speech. He then disobeyed his boss's order and unhooked the truck from the trailer and drove away. TransAm then fired Maddin.Although the 10th Circuit sided with Maddin, Gorsuch argued that it wasn't the court's job to determine whether TransAm's decision was "a wise or kind one.""Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one," 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."During Tuesday's confirmation hearing, Franken grilled Gorsuch on what he would have done in Maddin's place, describing the situation as a choice between freezing to death versus driving dangerously."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," Franken said."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."

Franken may be right about absurd, but their is no law about absurd, the worker can be fired at will if the contract specifies.  So who was hearing the suit? The labor relations board.  Does it matter? I have no idea, the labor courts are made up kangaroo courts in existence because Congress gave some agency the right of seizure, so the agency needs kangaroo courts to provide due process.  It is another quirk. But, does all the same law in regular court apply here? Who the frig knows, the complexity of these shadow courts is a nightmare.  Due process exists, by the way, because we are not a proportional democracy, m your public school teachers are mostly full of shit about this. In other words, the kangaroo court method fouls up any ability to apply legal consistency.

Gorsuch dissent said the firing was legal, no law was broken and no contract violated,
But Gorsuch is wrong if he thinks no law applies, as the dispatcher specifically asked the driver to break OSHA law, create an employee hazard.  The employee cannot do that, he is subject to legal discipline.  If public safety is concerned, then the employee has very strict external law about his actions.  So, the issue is the kangaroo court, what specifically does the kangaroo law say when it created the kangaroo court. ????