dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to maubs

Re: SCOTUS can't get anything right lately

said by maubs:

What's up with the Supremes? Corporations are persons and have rights to speech? Now they're exempt from fraud via arbitration? It's like they've all been dropped on their heads.

As much as I don't like the result of the ruling, it was the right ruling. There wasn't a constitutional issue here, other than Federal law trumping State. (and it does) They were only ruling on the application of the extremely crappy Federal Arbitration law. Blame the bought-and-paid-for politicians who signed the stupid thing in the first place, not the court.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

said by Camelot One:

said by maubs:

What's up with the Supremes? Corporations are persons and have rights to speech? Now they're exempt from fraud via arbitration? It's like they've all been dropped on their heads.

As much as I don't like the result of the ruling, it was the right ruling. There wasn't a constitutional issue here, other than Federal law trumping State. (and it does) They were only ruling on the application of the extremely crappy Federal Arbitration law. Blame the bought-and-paid-for politicians who signed the stupid thing in the first place, not the court.

It is time for the SCOTUS to do the right thing instead of narrowly rule ignoring the obvious enormity of the abuse this will generate against the CITIZENS of the USA.


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

said by WernerSchutz:

said by Camelot One:

said by maubs:

What's up with the Supremes? Corporations are persons and have rights to speech? Now they're exempt from fraud via arbitration? It's like they've all been dropped on their heads.

As much as I don't like the result of the ruling, it was the right ruling. There wasn't a constitutional issue here, other than Federal law trumping State. (and it does) They were only ruling on the application of the extremely crappy Federal Arbitration law. Blame the bought-and-paid-for politicians who signed the stupid thing in the first place, not the court.

It is time for the SCOTUS to do the right thing instead of narrowly rule ignoring the obvious enormity of the abuse this will generate against the CITIZENS of the USA.

You mean ignore the law? If this is so bad get new federal law passed banning this practice.


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1
reply to WernerSchutz

said by WernerSchutz:

said by Camelot One:

said by maubs:

What's up with the Supremes? Corporations are persons and have rights to speech? Now they're exempt from fraud via arbitration? It's like they've all been dropped on their heads.

As much as I don't like the result of the ruling, it was the right ruling. There wasn't a constitutional issue here, other than Federal law trumping State. (and it does) They were only ruling on the application of the extremely crappy Federal Arbitration law. Blame the bought-and-paid-for politicians who signed the stupid thing in the first place, not the court.

It is time for the SCOTUS to do the right thing instead of narrowly rule ignoring the obvious enormity of the abuse this will generate against the CITIZENS of the USA.

The court simply can't do that. It is Congress' job to legislate. The only time the court can strike down laws that have been passed is if they violate the US Constitution. And unfortunately, the framers forgot to include the "Citizens shouldn't be ass raped by corporations" Amendment.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to silentlooker

said by silentlooker:

You mean ignore the law? If this is so bad get new federal law passed banning this practice.

If Scalia and Alito can be so outspoken about things that are obviously wrong but benefit their "friends" maybe they could be as outspoken and bring debate about such terrible laws damaging the American foundation of laws.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Camelot One

said by Camelot One:

The court simply can't do that. It is Congress' job to legislate. The only time the court can strike down laws that have been passed is if they violate the US Constitution. And unfortunately, the framers forgot to include the "Citizens shouldn't be ass raped by corporations" Amendment.

It is a matter of conscience that in their position they should pursue. The fact that they choose not to is similar to witnessing a murder and not doing anything about it. There are principles that made this country the shining beacon for the world. Being in a position to defend those and choosing not to is treason.

A military mindset is simple and not clouded with all these "interpretations" that are excuses to not rise to the challenge to do the right thing.

I was ordered in 1989 in a Communist state to fire on civilians. My allegiance was to the "country, people and to the president". I ordered the fucking zampolit out before I would blow his brain out with my AK47 and chose to defend with my tank the people that were protesting.

As MLK I believe said "it is always the right time to do the right thing".

DBman190

join:2002-06-10
New York, NY

As much as I hate this ruling, it seems to be a correct application of the commerce clause and federal rights > state rights. We should focus on having the Federal Arbitration Act repealed/changed to actually require both parties to OPT IN, and not forbid a company to refuse to do business with a consumer if said consumer decides not to opt in.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Ar···tion_Act


Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to silentlooker

said by silentlooker:

You mean ignore the law? If this is so bad get new federal law passed banning this practice.

Are you really that dumb? Individual voters can't contribute that much money to political campaigns. Organizations like the EFF struggle to get funding. Meanwhile, the corporations donate MILLIONS to the corrupt politicians. Who do you think they're going to listen to?


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

said by Rekrul:

said by silentlooker:

You mean ignore the law? If this is so bad get new federal law passed banning this practice.

Are you really that dumb? Individual voters can't contribute that much money to political campaigns. Organizations like the EFF struggle to get funding. Meanwhile, the corporations donate MILLIONS to the corrupt politicians. Who do you think they're going to listen to?

That is irrelevant, Supreme court made right decision because law didn't prohibit arbitration.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

said by silentlooker:

That is irrelevant, Supreme court made right decision because law didn't prohibit arbitration.

So legal = right? I guess that means that slavery was ok as long as it was legal...


footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

1 recommendation

said by Rekrul:

said by silentlooker:

That is irrelevant, Supreme court made right decision because law didn't prohibit arbitration.

So legal = right? I guess that means that slavery was ok as long as it was legal...

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to decide what's right, it's their job to rule on the law. Nothing more, nothing less. Laws are supposed to be changed by Congress, not by the Court.
--
Dresden - I work in Accounts Payable.
Random Bad Guy - In what capacity?
Dresden - I make sure everyone gets what's coming to them.


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
reply to Rekrul

said by Rekrul:

said by silentlooker:

That is irrelevant, Supreme court made right decision because law didn't prohibit arbitration.

So legal = right? I guess that means that slavery was ok as long as it was legal...

Until slavery was prohibited, yes unfortunately slavery was legal for some period.


EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms

said by silentlooker:

said by Rekrul:

said by silentlooker:

That is irrelevant, Supreme court made right decision because law didn't prohibit arbitration.

So legal = right? I guess that means that slavery was ok as long as it was legal...

Until slavery was prohibited, yes unfortunately slavery was legal for some period.

Still is: Now the slaves are the non-corporate tax paying persons.
--
~ Project Hope ~

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to WernerSchutz

said by WernerSchutz:

I was ordered in 1989 in a Communist state to fire on civilians. My allegiance was to the "country, people and to the president". I ordered the fucking zampolit out before I would blow his brain out with my AK47 and chose to defend with my tank the people that were protesting.

I applaud you, sir.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by WernerSchutz:

I was ordered in 1989 in a Communist state to fire on civilians. My allegiance was to the "country, people and to the president". I ordered the fucking zampolit out before I would blow his brain out with my AK47 and chose to defend with my tank the people that were protesting.

I applaud you, sir.

yeah, I have a problem with authority when it is criminal in nature. I am sure that eventually will get me killed, but as my drill sergeant used to say there is a difference dying for something vs dying for nothing.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to footballdude

said by footballdude:

Laws are supposed to be changed by Congress, not by the Court.

Then get rid of the court.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to WernerSchutz

said by WernerSchutz:

I was ordered in 1989 in a Communist state to fire on civilians. My allegiance was to the "country, people and to the president". I ordered the fucking zampolit out before I would blow his brain out with my AK47 and chose to defend with my tank the people that were protesting.

Then you are a traitor and will be hung.