The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)

Bfgrn

New member
Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T’s favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous.

When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five — John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the “founders” intended.

It’s kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the “little guy” denouncing “elites” who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the “little guy.”

The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito. This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to “the law,” not to “the Constitution,” not to “calling balls and strikes,” but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism. This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige.

Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the “founders” that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.

Whole op-ed
 
If you don't like this decision. Write your congressman/woman. It is the right of congress to prohibit such activities or clauses by law and under the constitution.

This is why unions are so hated and despised by the far right wing. There one of the few but affective methods for those of the middle class to pool their resources to lobby congress to address issues of concern to them. The right wing only desires that the wealthy and corporations have that privilege.
 
Nice rant and typical for "the sky is falling" asses........but exactly what was the constitutional issue that the SCOTUS ruled on....???

and personally, I think the merger of ATT and T Mobile is a god sent gift....
 
i'm surprised the courts even took this case. this should teach every idiot out there to read the contract in it's entirety before you sign it.

bfgrn, i need you to write a book about the way you view the world, because it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
 
what a lousy left wing propaganda hit piece

what precedent did scotus ignore? how exactly did they engage in judicial activism?

and last i checked you are required to pay tax on free phones. you pay the original price of the phone if it is on sale or free in california.
 
i haven't read the entire decision...but the parts i've skimmed of both the majority and dissent....the majority decision is not a good one, nonetheless, the OP is a blathering liberal rant that is completely wrong about activism and precedent. it would have been better to analyze the law logically without uber partisan bias.
 
what a lousy left wing propaganda hit piece

what precedent did scotus ignore? how exactly did they engage in judicial activism?

and last i checked you are required to pay tax on free phones. you pay the original price of the phone if it is on sale or free in california.

Yurt spurts.
 
the majority decision in this case really sucks..... the reasoning of the majority decision isn't expained in any detail...and I think they are absolutely wrong......
 
i'm surprised the courts even took this case. this should teach every idiot out there to read the contract in it's entirety before you sign it.

bfgrn, i need you to write a book about the way you view the world, because it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Reality STY? The reality of life in America today as a household, as a family or as an individual is this: the most likely thing that will show up in your mailbox, on your TV screen or in a store that will send you into bankruptcy or serious financial strife, will not come from the government. It will come from corporations who have gained enough power to make unethical business practices 'lawful'
 
Reality STY? The reality of life in America today as a household, as a family or as an individual is this: the most likely thing that will show up in your mailbox, on your TV screen or in a store that will send you into bankruptcy or serious financial strife, will not come from the government. It will come from corporations who have gained enough power to make unethical business practices 'lawful'
Well.........when you grow up, you're gonna see the ethics and law are two completely different things......as it should be....
 
what a lousy left wing propaganda hit piece

what precedent did scotus ignore? how exactly did they engage in judicial activism?

and last i checked you are required to pay tax on free phones. you pay the original price of the phone if it is on sale or free in california.

well bfgrn?
 
Reality STY? The reality of life in America today as a household, as a family or as an individual is this: the most likely thing that will show up in your mailbox, on your TV screen or in a store that will send you into bankruptcy or serious financial strife, will not come from the government. It will come from corporations who have gained enough power to make unethical business practices 'lawful'

no doubt, but over the last 6 years what political party received the most campaign contributions from corporate entities? That reality you are choosing to ignore is that BOTH the democrat and republican parties would fuck you over in second for a max campaign contribution and a free trip to an island. All they'd have to do is listen to their pitch for a favorable law or tax break. So why do you continue to support that?
 
well bfgrn?

First off, the right wing robes ruled that State rights are merely right wing bullshit, the federal government decides.

Second, Justice Scalia reinterpreted the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 in which arbitration’s purpose was to resolve disputes between businesses — not businesses and consumers.
 
no doubt, but over the last 6 years what political party received the most campaign contributions from corporate entities? That reality you are choosing to ignore is that BOTH the democrat and republican parties would fuck you over in second for a max campaign contribution and a free trip to an island. All they'd have to do is listen to their pitch for a favorable law or tax break. So why do you continue to support that?

I don't support those actions by either party, but there is no option between the two parties. The Republican party is WHOLLY owned by corporations and the opulent. It has been hijacked by far right authoritarians and theocrats.

If you are at all familiar with the fight over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agenda of the two parties could not be greater. Democrats want to protect consumers and Republicans want to protect corporations ability to step on the little guy.
 
I don't support those actions by either party, but there is no option between the two parties. The Republican party is WHOLLY owned by corporations and the opulent. It has been hijacked by far right authoritarians and theocrats.

If you are at all familiar with the fight over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agenda of the two parties could not be greater. Democrats want to protect consumers and Republicans want to protect corporations ability to step on the little guy.

wow, democrat colored glasses. and why is there no alternative in your mind?
 
First off, the right wing robes ruled that State rights are merely right wing bullshit, the federal government decides.

Second, Justice Scalia reinterpretedexactly what was the constitutional issue that the SCOTUS ruled on in which arbitration’s purpose was to resolve disputes between businesses — not businesses and consumers.
Really....? What does a class action lawsuit against a business have to do with the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925?....Or with States rights.....???
 
Back
Top