The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

That's the 2011 agreement on their website, not the 2006 agreement, so I don't know what wording has changed. The petition references it in the appendix, but the pdf doesn't include the appendices. It does lead to confusion for me, because every single summary of the case, sans Scalia but including plenty of other lawyers, indicates that AT&T is attempting to compel arbitration under the arbitration agreement. Additionally, it still forces you to forgo your rights to a trial-by-jury and class action, so Scalia's wording is somewhat generous to AT&T's position. It appears that AT&T's arbitration clause was on the more consumer-friendly side but it was still very limiting.

 

And, again, the problem with this ruling isn't just this specific case, it's that it applies to all arbitration clauses and that many of them do prevent access to the courts, either in full or in part. We both keep going back and forth between AT&T's clause and mandatory arbitration clauses in general, which is muddying the waters.

Edited April 29, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

We're talking about two things here. Arbitration decisions are legally binding yes, that's true. But in most case arbitration decisions are not the final resolution of the matter. They're more, hey lets talk with this guy and see what he thinks and maybe he'll help us reach a fair settlement. It's more of a neutral parties' recommendation for a resolution of the matter.

 

My point was that these arbitration systems are probably not binding on either party unless they've agreed to that arrangement beforehand. That might well be in the agreement you sign with these companies, I dunno. But they have to leave you the option of also filing a suit in court (before deciding to go to arbitration). My understanding was that a company can't force you to ONLY go through arbitration, with no other recourse.

 

This is the crux of the argument, and I still maintain that your position here is wrong. Companies can and do routinely force customers to agree to mandatory binding arbitration clauses that require them to forfeit their rights to file a suit in the judicial system or be part of a class action. The arbitration decisions are final and enforceable, and while there is opportunity for judicial review, it is a very narrow review and extremely rare for a decision to be changed.

[StrangeSox]

Rent-A-Center v Jackson, which I cited a few pages ago, involves mandatory arbitration that barred the plaintiff from filing any judicial suit; they were required to go to arbitration, even if the arbitration clause itself was at issue.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf

The Agreement provided for arbitration of all “past, present or future” disputes arising out of Jackson’s employment with Rent-A-Center, including “claims for discrimination” and “claims for violation of any federal,law.” App. 29–30. It also provided that “[t]he Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency. . .shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.

 

RAC employees were contractually barred from filing suit against RAC. Everything had to go through an arbitrator.

 

Why do we want to hand over our judicial system and our civil rights to mandatory arbitration proceedings that are not held to the same standards and requirements as judicial rulings but contain the same weight of enforcement? This is not a blanket attack on all arbitration; clearly, it has its benefits. But it is an aggressive questioning of the courts' willingness to hand over the rights of consumers and employees to corporations who are free to bar them from their right to judicial litigation.

[Jenksismyhero]

Rent-A-Center v Jackson, which I cited a few pages ago, involves mandatory arbitration that barred the plaintiff from filing any judicial suit; they were required to go to arbitration, even if the arbitration clause itself was at issue.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf

 

 

RAC employees were contractually barred from filing suit against RAC. Everything had to go through an arbitrator.

 

Why do we want to hand over our judicial system and our civil rights to mandatory arbitration proceedings that are not held to the same standards and requirements as judicial rulings but contain the same weight of enforcement? This is not a blanket attack on all arbitration; clearly, it has its benefits. But it is an aggressive questioning of the courts' willingness to hand over the rights of consumers and employees to corporations who are free to bar them from their right to judicial litigation.

 

From reading you quote there, it sounds to me like they have to force you to go to arbitration first. I've said that's fine. I don't see anywhere that says that's the only recourse and that if they're not happy with the arbitration decision they're precluded from filing a suit. The rest of the language deals with issues relating to interpreting the agreement itself, which again, needs to be put through arbitration before proceeding to litigation.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

i'm tired of debating this. im gonna do some legal research and see what the courts have actually decided. might not be until monday though

[StrangeSox]

From reading you quote there, it sounds to me like they have to force you to go to arbitration first. I've said that's fine. I don't see anywhere that says that's the only recourse and that if they're not happy with the arbitration decision they're precluded from filing a suit. The rest of the language deals with issues relating to interpreting the agreement itself, which again, needs to be put through arbitration before proceeding to litigation.

 

The only thing you can file suit for is review of the arbitration decision which is a very narrow review. Arbitrators are not judges. They aren't juries. They're not held to the same standards as courts and don't have to follow the same rules. Their rulings can and often are kept secret. You can be banned from acting as a class. You can be forced to pay very high upfront arbitration fees and be subject to paying legal representation for the other side if you lose.

 

You are signing your rights to litigation away with these agreements. I don't know how anyone is comfortable with that.

[Soxbadger]

Because youre painting with an extremely broad brush.

 

I think there could possibly be an exception to arbitration:

 

IE A party may file a pleading with a state/federal court asking a judge to review whether or not arbitration would unfairly prejudice the party.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It would probably have to be reviewed by the arbitrator!

 

This could effectively be the end of class action lawsuits, at least until the law is changed.

[Soxbadger]

Not really, it would only affect class action lawsuits where there was a valid arbitration clause.

 

And arbitration decisions can be reviewed by the Circuit or Federal court. In Illinois you have to register arbitration decisions with a court and can vacate an award pursuant to 710 ILCS 5/12.

 

I just dont see arbitration per se as a bad thing.

[StrangeSox]

Nor do I. But reviewing an arbitration decision is still not the same thing as filing a small claims suit in the first place, correct?

 

What's to prevent the majority of companies from inserting clauses banning class action into the agreements? The States have no way to overturn these now, and it's my understanding that a significant percentage of consumer contracts employee these sorts of provisions. More and more employers are adding them as well. Legally, there's nothing to stop every company from inserting 100% enforceable mandatory arbitration and class action bans into every consumer and employment contract. That's the impact of this ruling.

[lostfan]

Jesus Christ. I would split all this stuff off in its own thread but it's like a 10 page argument.

[StrangeSox]

Bow before my dominance of The Democrat Thread with pointless internet arguments!

 

(it's been slow at work)

Edited April 29, 2011 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

lol. you guys post it when I'm at work too so I come back to like 5 more pages every day

[Balta1701]

Bow before my dominance of The Democrat Thread with pointless internet arguments!

 

(it's been slow at work)

Check the thread post count b****.

[BigSqwert]

What a repugnant douche wad.

 

Daniels To Sign Bill Stripping Federal Funds From Planned Parenthood in Indiana

 

Republican Governor Mitch Daniels released a statement Friday afternoon saying he will sign legislation stripping federal funds from Planned Parenthood in Indiana, the first state to make such a move.

 

...

 

Once he signs the bill, it will go into effect immediately, and would bar Planned Parenthood from receiving any public dollars -- including Medicaid payments, which are crucial to the group's patient population.

 

"We do around 500 pap tests a week," Indiana Planned Parenthood President Betty Cockrum told TPM in an interview earlier on Friday. "We will be making phone calls to Medicaid patients all over the state and telling them, either you have to pay for that pap test out of pocket, or you need to find someone else who can take you as a Medicaid patient. We can't do it anymore."

 

There are 28 Planned Parenthood centers in the state. Almost 60 percent of patients seen last year were living under the poverty line.

 

The announcement was met shock by Planned Parenthood in Indiana, who had earlier expressed confidence that Daniels would weigh the bill's consequences carefully before signing.

 

"The signing of HB 1210 into law is unconscionable and unspeakable. We will now suffer the consequences of lawmakers who have no regard for fact-based decision making and sound public health policy," said Cockrum in a statement.

 

"As many as 22,000 low-income Hoosiers will lose their medical home. Countless patients will find themselves without access to lifesaving tests to avoid the tragic outcomes of cervical and breast cancer and epidemic sexually transmitted disease here in Indiana."

[StrangeSox]

Republicans: #1 on the Economy!

[BigSqwert]

Republicans: #1 on the Economy!

The economy in Indiana should see an enormous surplus within a year or so based on this prudent move.

[lostfan]

The economy in Indiana should see an enormous surplus within a year or so based on this prudent move.

just imagine if they could stop all those homos from f***ing and spreading their homo viruses everywhere

[lostfan]

I meant to upload this graph a long time ago

Edited April 30, 2011 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

The economy in Indiana should see an enormous surplus within a year or so based on this prudent move.

 

Over a billion dollar this year FWIW. We are getting a tax refund and a pay down of pensions.

[kapkomet]

Over a billion dollar this year FWIW. We are getting a tax refund and a pay down of pensions.

 

 

Which means Mitch Daniels is the evilist governor in the history of governors. He's not redistributing wealth the right way.

[BigSqwert]

Over a billion dollar this year FWIW. We are getting a tax refund and a pay down of pensions.

All because of Planned Parenthood? Wow!

[HuskyCaucasian]

LMAO!!!

[lostfan]

LMAO!!!

Yeah this was all over Facebook this morning, hilarious.

 

"Where are Biggie and Tupac?"

Edited May 1, 2011 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

Watch the full 18 minutes, it's hilarious. He gets some really good burns in on Trump.