The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

It was a stupid promise to make.

 

Then don't make it. That's what I am saying.

[StrangeSox]

he was full of 'em

[NorthSideSox72]

Then don't make it. That's what I am saying.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[StrangeSox]

Another great reason not to vote for Obama:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42780381

[Balta1701]

Another great reason not to vote for Obama:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42780381

Did you get that from the Republican thread? Because I beat you.

 

You have to admit one thing...any candidate who doesn't do this crap will lose. Especially after Citizens United.

[Balta1701]

Different topic. Well, slightly different, since hey, a 5-4 majority in the Court couldn't be changed by having a Democrat in the White House. Al Gore would have put Roberts and Alito in there, I'm sure.

 

The Supreme Court today effectively has put an end, forever, to the use of class action lawsuits against corporations. Corporations now have the right to have you sign a waiver giving up your right to join in a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business with them.

 

If Sony, for example, had this provision in their unreadable 187 page user agreement, then you could not join a class action lawsuit against them for losing your credit card information.

 

There's really no way this does anything but screw a whole helluva lot of people. There won't be a user agreement anywhere that doesn't have you give up that right within a year.

 

[StrangeSox]

Did you get that from the Republican thread? Because I beat you.

 

You have to admit one thing...any candidate who doesn't do this crap will lose. Especially after Citizens United.

 

Yes I got that from your post.

[StrangeSox]

Different topic. Well, slightly different, since hey, a 5-4 majority in the Court couldn't be changed by having a Democrat in the White House. Al Gore would have put Roberts and Alito in there, I'm sure.

 

The Supreme Court today effectively has put an end, forever, to the use of class action lawsuits against corporations. Corporations now have the right to have you sign a waiver giving up your right to join in a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business with them.

 

If Sony, for example, had this provision in their unreadable 187 page user agreement, then you could not join a class action lawsuit against them for losing your credit card information.

 

There's really no way this does anything but screw a whole helluva lot of people. There won't be a user agreement anywhere that doesn't have you give up that right within a year.

 

let the system collapse because it's fatally wounded anyway.

 

Between this and Citizens United, the plutarchy is now firmly entrenched. We lose.

 

[Balta1701]

Between this and Citizens United, the plutarchy is now firmly entrenched. We lose.

But there was no difference between Gore and Bush;.

[StrangeSox]

But there was no difference between Gore and Bush;.

 

Remember how no one ever said that but you?

[Balta1701]

Remember how no one ever said that but you?

You said that it didn't matter which one you voted for, and you wouldn't be mad if a Republican beat Obama because you cast a protest vote voted for a third party candidate with no shot of winning.

 

Both this one and Citizens United were 5-4 decisions, clearly a result of Roberts keeping his promise to build consensus and respect precedent. You don't get to complain about a decision like this and then tell me how it's not important to vote for the Democrat in the general, because 5-4 decisions go the opposite direction if 1 person on the Court is replaced.

[Jenksismyhero]

Different topic. Well, slightly different, since hey, a 5-4 majority in the Court couldn't be changed by having a Democrat in the White House. Al Gore would have put Roberts and Alito in there, I'm sure.

 

The Supreme Court today effectively has put an end, forever, to the use of class action lawsuits against corporations. Corporations now have the right to have you sign a waiver giving up your right to join in a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business with them.

 

If Sony, for example, had this provision in their unreadable 187 page user agreement, then you could not join a class action lawsuit against them for losing your credit card information.

 

There's really no way this does anything but screw a whole helluva lot of people. There won't be a user agreement anywhere that doesn't have you give up that right within a year.

 

Actually this probably hurts corporations more than it helps. It's increased the cost of defending these suits enormously. Instead of taking 500 claims and consolidating them, Wal-mart or Sony or whoever is going to have to defend each and every one of them. Just because you sign a waiver doesn't mean you are signing away any right you have to make a claim. Not to mention the fact that individuals are going to get a better deal anyway because 30% (or more) of the class funds aren't going to pay the hundreds of thousands or millions in attorneys fees that were generated for the benefit of the class. Who is really all that excited about getting .48 cents anyway?

Edited April 27, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

I should add too that the blogs reading of the arbitration clauses is wrong (mostly). Those arbitration clauses are non-binding arbitration. So yeah, technically you have to go through a process first, but if you're not happy with the result you can still file a suit.

[Balta1701]

Actually this probably hurts corporations more than it helps. It's increased the cost of defending these suits enormously. Instead of taking 500 claims and consolidating them, Wal-mart or Sony or whoever is going to have to defend each and every one of them. Just because you sign a waiver doesn't mean you are signing away any right you have to make a claim. Not to mention the fact that individuals are going to get a better deal anyway because 30% of the class funds aren't going to pay the hundreds of thousands or millions in attorneys fees that were generated for the benefit of the class. Who is really all that excited about getting .48 cents anyway?

Nope, because they can also insert clauses in requiring you to either submit to arbitration or give up your right to sue entirely. There's a reason AT&T had this clause.

[NorthSideSox72]

Different topic. Well, slightly different, since hey, a 5-4 majority in the Court couldn't be changed by having a Democrat in the White House. Al Gore would have put Roberts and Alito in there, I'm sure.

 

The Supreme Court today effectively has put an end, forever, to the use of class action lawsuits against corporations. Corporations now have the right to have you sign a waiver giving up your right to join in a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business with them.

 

If Sony, for example, had this provision in their unreadable 187 page user agreement, then you could not join a class action lawsuit against them for losing your credit card information.

 

There's really no way this does anything but screw a whole helluva lot of people. There won't be a user agreement anywhere that doesn't have you give up that right within a year.

 

 

I should add too that the blogs reading of the arbitration clauses is wrong (mostly). Those arbitration clauses are non-binding arbitration. So yeah, technically you have to go through a process first, but if you're not happy with the result you can still file a suit.

 

That was what I thought, more or less. You cannot legally bind someone from filing a civil claim in that broad a way, that contractualizes an assumption of liability beyond control of the liable party, which can't be done. It just adds an extra hurdle to prove lack of control.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Nope, because they can also insert clauses in requiring you to either submit to arbitration or give up your right to sue entirely. There's a reason AT&T had this clause.

 

Nearly every purchase contract has this clause these days and it's because of the cost of litigating in court. You file a case, it costs the company hundreds of dollars to appear, even if it's a bulls*** claim. Multiply that by ten thousand a year and it gets pricey just to appear, let alone defend yourself, in court.

[Balta1701]

Nearly every purchase contract has this clause these days and it's because of the cost of litigating in court. You file a case, it costs the company hundreds of dollars to appear, even if it's a bulls*** claim. Multiply that by ten thousand a year and it gets pricey just to appear, let alone defend yourself, in court.

The converse is just as true though...arbitration cases rule overwhelmingly in favor of the corporate interest, which is why corporations hate class action lawsuits so much, because they don't win them all of the time.

[Jenksismyhero]

The converse is just as true though...arbitration cases rule overwhelmingly in favor of the corporate interest, which is why corporations hate class action lawsuits so much, because they don't win them all of the time.

 

Send me a link of the "overwhelmingly in favor" stat. I don't buy that. Favorable, maybe, in a slight majority of cases because people are willing to get 75% of what they want instead of fighting for 100% of it in court.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Send me a link of the "overwhelmingly in favor" stat. I don't buy that. Favorable, maybe, in a slight majority of cases because people are willing to get 75% of what they want instead of fighting for 100% of it in court.

Let me ask you this...would it make sense for AT&T, large numbers of credit card companies, etc., to prefer arbitration to class action settlements if they were losing money on the choice?

 

Anyway, I'm sure you won't like the source because it's a partisan group advocating for reform on this subject, Public Citizen has put out a number of reports on this subject suggesting the corporate arbitration winning %age is ~94%. Your first challenge on the number is going to be the fact that Public Citizen doesn't include cases which count as dismissals as wins for the challenging party, which is a main point of contention.

[StrangeSox]

This glosses over the fact that it protects corporations who screw over thousands of people a little bit, say $30 each, because no one is going to file a suit over an individual claim of $30. By preventing class-action lawsuits, you're eliminating the ability of millions of people to get recompense for minor wrong-doings by corporations.

[NorthSideSox72]

This glosses over the fact that it protects corporations who screw over thousands of people a little bit, say $30 each, because no one is going to file a suit over an individual claim of $30. By preventing class-action lawsuits, you're eliminating the ability of millions of people to get recompense for minor wrong-doings by corporations.

Did you not read the part where this doesn't stop class action lawsuits? It adds a hurdle, yes, which in some ways may even be good for consumers because it should help root out some frivilous attempts and therefore keep costs down. But this ruling doesn't stop class action lawsuits as Balta claimed.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Did you not read the part where this doesn't stop class action lawsuits? It adds a hurdle, yes, which in some ways may even be good for consumers because it should help root out some frivilous attempts and therefore keep costs down. But this ruling doesn't stop class action lawsuits as Balta claimed.

 

It doesn't legally prevent class action lawsuits, but it makes you take it before arbitration as an individual first. No one is going to take EA to arbitration over $10 or whatever they'll eventually settle the Madden monopoly for, and even if individuals do, now you have to wait for enough people to individually get through arbitration before they can be a party to the class action.

 

Tell me how that doesn't heavily favor large corporations (since this applies to business-to-business transactions as well).

 

Basically it makes it very easy for companies to screw over thousands/millions for pennies at a time instead of larger, more damaging fraud.

 

It's the plot of Superman 3.

 

Edited April 27, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Walmart's facing a huge gender discrimination class action suit right now.

 

What's the odds of that happening again if all of their employees are forced to go through individual arbitration to prove their case first?

[StrangeSox]

The good news is that this can be fixed simply by amending the FAA. The bad news is that it won't happen.

 

Lawyers in this thread, please correct me on any misconceptions I might have regarding the process people will have to go through now in order to bring a class-action suit.

[Jenksismyhero]

Walmart's facing a huge gender discrimination class action suit right now.

 

What's the odds of that happening again if all of their employees are forced to go through individual arbitration to prove their case first?

 

As someone who has been on both sides of those cases, it hurts the company more to defend those discrimination suits individually, and it's much more beneficial to the individual to get their own separate day in court. It might be EASIER for them, but in terms of getting some kind of decent compensation, again it's getting that .48 cent recovery for your $50 dollar loss. When you throw people into a class it makes everyone the same, and we all know circumstances are never the same.