Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court: AT&T Can Force Arbitration
suraj.sun writes with this unhappy news, as reported by Ars Technica: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that AT&T — and indeed, any company — could block class-action suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those customers into binding arbitration. The ruling reverses previous lower-court decisions that classified stipulations in AT&T's service contract which barred class arbitration as 'unconscionable.' ... In cases where an unfair practice affects large numbers of customers, AT&T or other companies could quietly settle a few individual claims instead of being faced with larger class-action settlements which might include punitive awards designed to discourage future bad practices."
Every gun nut whines and whines about how the government is trying to take their guns away, and when you ask the gun nut why he needs automatic weapons to go duck hunting, he will inevitably quote the 2nd amendment, and how we *need* to have the people armed so when the government has become totalitarian, we can rise up and shoot our way back to freedom and "take our country back".
Excuse me, but it seems that we are well past that point. Every country on the other side of the planet that ends in "ia" is having a civil war, why aren't we? The country has become corrupted by capitalism gone crazy, and now we are living in state of Fascism.
And yet the gun-nuts who worry about our freedoms seem oblivious to the fact that we don't have any freedoms, except that we still have a right to have guns. As long as we don't try to *do* anything with them.
Seriously, WTF?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
WRONG. This "judicial activism" stuff is crap. The courts are not suppose to blindly obey the laws congress passes. Haven't you heard of "checks and balances"? They, along with the president, are suppose to keep congress in check. Congress giving the courts "latitude" is irrelevant. The courts are suppose to strike down unjust laws (you know, things that violate the constitution).
There is no judicial activism here. According to the article, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) took precedent. In that act, corporations have the right to seek binding arbitration in disputes to avoid lengthy, costly court battles. This isn't a break for AT&T or corporations, this is a slam against those lawyers who drum up all of these class action suits with the intention of getting corporations to settle without going to court. The FAA also allows states to set restrictions, too, however, California, the state in question did not.
The case that brought this up, again according to the article, was that AT&T charged sales tax on a supposedly free phone. Somebody sued and turned it into a class action suit. Of course, AT&T doesn't get to keep the sales tax charged. The real beef should have been with the state of California which was requiring AT&T to charge and remit the tax. Oh, but wait, you can't sue the State for that. So, the attorneys go after the corporation, which is where all the money is supposedly.
There is no activism here, the system worked like it should. Congress had passed a law that to help mitigate all of these frivolous class action suits. AT&T tried to go to arbitration under that law. The lower court said they couldn't. They Supreme Court said, yes they can. The mistake that the lower court made was that it did not take into consideration the FAA, only the user contract, which it ruled against. The Supreme Court never ruled on the user contract, because the federal law took precedent.
As for courts striking down unjust laws, that's not their purpose. Congress can pass any law it wants. It doesn't have to be just. However, if it violates the constitution, then the courts will strike it down. Most laws are unjust to some group or another, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.
There is nothing new here, so just move on.