{"id":4696,"date":"2011-04-28T02:39:55","date_gmt":"2011-04-28T09:39:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=4696"},"modified":"2011-04-28T02:39:55","modified_gmt":"2011-04-28T09:39:55","slug":"scotus-screws-america-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2011\/04\/28\/scotus-screws-america-again\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Screws America Again!"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><font color=\"#0000ff\">If you read the article above this one, you can see how SCOTUS screwed America when they made corporate money a form of protected speech.&#160; They did it again, albeit not on the same scale.&#160; Corporations can band together and fund political candidates in secret per <em>citizens united<\/em>.&#160; Can customers of some giant corporations band together as a class to express themselves in court, or can corporations force them into mandatory arbitration? Are you surprised that SCOTUS gave corporations a big win?<\/font><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" style=\"background-image: none; border-right-width: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: block; float: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin-left: auto; border-left-width: 0px; margin-right: auto; padding-top: 0px\" title=\"SCOTUS4\" border=\"0\" alt=\"SCOTUS4\" src=\"https:\/\/www.7thstep.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/04\/SCOTUS4.jpg\" width=\"500\" height=\"311\" \/><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>The Supreme Court gave corporations a major win Wednesday<\/strong>, ruling in a 5-4 decision that companies can block their disgruntled customers from joining together in a class-action lawsuit. The ruling arose from a California lawsuit involving cellphones, but it will have a nationwide impact.<\/p>\n<p>In the past, consumers who bought a product or a service had been free to join a class-action lawsuit if they were dissatisfied or felt they had been cheated. <strong>By combining these small claims, they could bring a major lawsuit against a corporation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>But in Wednesday&#8217;s decision, the high court said that under the Federal Arbitration Act <strong>companies can force these disgruntled customers to arbitrate their complaints individually<\/strong>, <strong>not as part of a group<\/strong>. Consumer-rights advocates said this rule would spell the end for small claims involving products or services.<\/p>\n<p>In the case before the court, a Southern California couple complained about a $30 charge involving their purchase of cellphone service from AT&amp;T Mobility. <strong>The California courts said they were entitled to join with others in bringing a class-action claim against the cellphone company<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>But the Supreme Court reversed that decision Wednesday in AT&amp;T Mobility vs. Concepcion. <strong>Justice <font color=\"#ff0000\">Antonin Scalia<\/font> said companies may require buyers to sign arbitration agreements, and those agreements may preclude class-action claims<\/strong>. <strong>Chief Justice <font color=\"#ff0000\">John G. Roberts Jr<\/font>. and Justices <font color=\"#ff0000\">Anthony Kennedy<\/font>, <font color=\"#ff0000\">Clarence Thomas<\/font> and <font color=\"#ff0000\">Samuel A. Alito Jr<\/font>. formed the majority<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>Scalia said companies like arbitration because it is efficient and less costly. &quot;Arbitration is poorly suited to the higher stakes of class litigation,&quot; he said.<\/p>\n<p>But the dissenters said a practical ban on class action would be unfair to cheated consumers. Justice <strong>Stephen G. Breyer<\/strong> said the California courts had insisted on permitting class-action claims, despite arbitration clauses that forbade them. Otherwise, he said, <strong>it would allow a company to &quot;insulate&quot; itself &quot;from liability for its own frauds by deliberately cheating large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money<\/strong>.&quot;<\/p>\n<p>Breyer added that a ban on class actions would prevent lawyers from representing clients for small claims. &quot;What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?&quot; he wrote. Justices <strong>Ruth Bader Ginsburg<\/strong>, <strong>Sonia Sotomayor<\/strong> and <strong>Elena Kagan<\/strong> joined his dissent\u2026 [<em>emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Inserted from &lt;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.latimes.com\/business\/sc-dc-0428-court-class-action-web-20110427,0,1239412.story\" target=\"_blank\">LA Times<\/a>&gt;<\/p>\n<p><font color=\"#0000ff\">After this decision you will not be able to get a cell phone or have a bank account without signing an arbitration agreement.&#160; Soon you will not be able to check into a hospital or see a doctor without one.&#160; Of course it was the fascist five that goose-stepped together to take rights away from Main Street Americans and give them to criminal corporations.<\/font><\/p>\n<p><font color=\"#0000ff\">Now, to those of you who are considering staying home or voting for a minor party with no chance of winning as an expression of protest, consider this.&#160; The next two Supreme Court Justices to retire will likely be Breyer and Ginsburg.&#160; Now compare Roberts and Alito with Sotomayor and Kagan.&#160; If a Republican president gets to appoint the replacement of either, this nation will not survive.<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>If you read the article above this one, you can see how SCOTUS screwed America when they made corporate money a form of protected speech.&#160; They did it again, albeit not on the same scale.&#160; Corporations can band together and fund political candidates in secret per citizens united.&#160; Can customers of some giant corporations band <a href='https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2011\/04\/28\/scotus-screws-america-again\/' class='excerpt-more'>[&#8230;]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}