Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A court is legislating from the bench when it creates a new law, privilege, etc out of whole cloth. Had the Court gone the other way, that is exactly what would have happened. Via decision, they would have abolished the 1925 Arbitration Act as well as every existing statute/principle for contract law, since the plaintiff was demanding a court back up their desire to nullify a contract they signed but currently find to be inconvenient.
Legislating from the bench means reading into what you think a law means instead of what is the law as written. To decide the 1935 National Labor Relations Act invalidates/abolishes voluntary arbitration contracts between employee and employer requires reading subjective opinion into several laws to justify a predetermined conclusion. To decide that the 1925 Arbitration Act covers individual arbitration contracts just fine, as it was intended to, requires reading the law as written. The former is bench legislation and the latter is simple adjudication according to the law.
And no matter how many times people make the claim, it will never be true that this decision took away worker's rights. All it did was deny the creation of a new worker "right" to ignore contracts they sign with their employer that are already covered under existing law.
Well according to Gorsuch it isn't coercing but that is not true in the dissent. They weren't abolishing arbitration but they wanted to retain the option of class actions. It did remove the right for employees to join in a class action, its complicated and that is why its a split decision. Gorsuch indicated the 1925 law prevails, the dissent indicated it violated the NLRB.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Correct. Taking the risk, is a YUGE leap of faith in yourself, to be your old bosses competition.
You know your good, when a few years down the road, he shutters his doors, or you buy him out. Hopefully you both make it in life.
So, when you are beeching about the boss and your low value to someone else, think what it would be like if you were the boss and in control of your own destiny.
You can live a good life without being a business owner. Neither of my grandfathers were business owners, life long employees, though both were engineers, and retired upper middle class with benefits and pensions that no longer exist today
Justice Ginsburg said that 53% of corporations have these in their contract. You radical republicans act like the corporations are not acting in concert.
The creation of corporations, is the means for fascism. It is all part of the Progressive Marxist Era.
Eliminate the 16th amendment, along with the federal reserve and you take away the means for corporations to exist.
They had to have the mechanism to protect their (government) wealth in their move to fascism, like Mussoulini's roaring economy.
That is why corporations get a slap on the hand, and remain in business. When before, they were sued and put into bankruptcy.
Neither workers nor ordinary people benefit from a class-action suit.
In a class-action suit against AT&T, the attorneys got rich, and the class-members got a $10 voucher which could only be used for AT&T long-distance charges.
People who sued individually got a helluva lot more money, and the courts awarded reasonable attorney costs and fees, so it cost the individual Plaintiff nothing.
But, that's neither here nor there.
The Fair Labor Standards Act provides for real damages, liquidated damages, and any other damages as the court sees fit, and the Defendant is charged with paying reasonable attorney fees and costs for the Plaintiff.
29 USC 216(b)
The court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.
Law over boards. Simple. One goes through the legislative process, is signed into law by a president. The latter is an appointed, unaccountable group that makes rules and regulations without regard to the separation of powers that the constitution defines. The NLRBoard took an unlawful action. Given, these were mainly Obama appointees, it is highly doubtful any great number were harmed. Not enough time has elapsed and this rule was challenged almost immediately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Well according to Gorsuch it isn't coercing but that is not true in the dissent. They weren't abolishing arbitration but they wanted to retain the option of class actions. It did remove the right for employees to join in a class action, its complicated and that is why its a split decision. Gorsuch indicated the 1925 law prevails, the dissent indicated it violated the NLRB.
You've all made arguments, many good ones some not.
At the end of the day, an important avenue of judicial remedy has been removed for many. The corporations will profit from this, workers won't.
I've always said that in a just society litigation is the sane man's alternative to the shot gun. The Supreme Court removed a legal remedy yesterday. It made our society a little more uncivilized.
Actually it is quite common for the working class all over the world to work against their own best interest. It is the labor union movements that change this, democratizing society, educating workers and bringing a certain level of balance between labor and capital. The ruling class know this perfectly well. Thats why they are so obsessed with destroying the union movements. The state of the labor unions is the main difference between America and the rest of the developed world these days.
You’re probably right.
It’s just that Americans work so damn hard at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
So, the Supreme Court voted against Fascism and the Democrats get bent out of shape.
Let me get this straight.... You want government in full control of private business?
Only lifetime employees, never understand what it takes to run a business. Just to have enough business, to give you an opportunity, to pay your rent.
Who do you think you’re impressing! Knock it off. You’re the biggest serf on CD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
