|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
Mildly related through the medium of common citizens being screwed over by corporate interests. I'm sure we're all tired of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions which screw the common American, so for a change of pace, how about a 5-3 Supreme Court decision which screws the common American.
| Quote: |
Details: American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant
Earlier today the Court decided that an arbitration agreement that precludes arbitration brought by a class of plaintiffs is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if the proposed class of plaintiffs proves that it would be economically infeasible for individuals to pursue arbitration on their own.
The case arose out of a dispute between American Express (“Amex”) and a group of merchants who accept American Express cards for payment. The merchants claimed that Amex violated federal antitrust laws by using its monopoly power in the credit card market to charge inflated fees. The merchants had an agreement with Amex requiring all disputes to be resolved by arbitration, and that agreement provided that there was “no right or authority” to arbitrate on a “class action basis.” The merchants, however, formed a class and sued, arguing that the cost to an individual merchant to arbitrate vastly exceeded the potential recovery possible, and that Amex had used its monopoly power to compel arbitration agreements that preclude the enforcement of congressionally created rights.
Amex moved to compel individual arbitration of each dispute under the agreement and the FAA. The merchants fought that motion with testimony from an expert witness who testified that the costs of proving each antitrust claim (at least several hundred thousand dollars) would dwarf the potential recoveries of individual actions (roughly $12,000-38,000). The district court granted the motion and dismissed the suits. After several years of litigation, including one “grant, vacate, and remand” order from the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit held that individual arbitration could not be compelled.
In a five-to-three decision, the Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit. Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) holds that the FAA does not permit courts to invalidate arbitration agreements simply because the cost of individual arbitration may be high. According to the Court, nothing in federal law guarantees plaintiffs “an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every claim.” Moreover, the Court found that the judicially created “effective vindication” exception to the FAA could not be applied simply because individual arbitrations are more costly to litigate than they are often worth.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion to underscore that the result was required by the plain meaning of the FAA. Justice Kagan (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer) dissented, arguing that the FAA does not preclude exceptions to arbitration agreements when necessary to enforce congressionally created rights. Justice Sotomayor was recused from the case because she was a judge on the panel that decided the case in the Second Circuit. |
The Roberts Court is doing long term damage to our nation, and really all we can do is hope Scalia gets around to dying soon. What a political system, where political remedies revolve around hoping another human being dies. |
Unfortunately I don't think Scalia is going to be dying anytime soon.
And while clearly the Iraq War was a costly debacle, Bush's biggest damage to this country might have been appointing Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS. Then again, it could have been worse. Can you imagine if Harriet Miers had been confirmed and been put on the Supreme Court? Yikes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Would it be possible for her to make a one time withdrawal, at the cost of the 5 dollar withdrawal fee, from the bank and then put the money in a bank of her choosing? Aside from the minor nuisance of dealing with the debit requirement has the person ever dealt with the things that temp. agencies can do to you? |
Yes. It's also possible to present the card to a bank and have the funds directly transferred into an account. I don't know if there is a fee for that.
The issuer of the card has an ocean of data on how poor people spend and handle their money. They know what they're doing.
| Quote: |
And do you really think illegals just get paid in cash? Many get paid by regular paychecks (and get deductions for SS and Medicare, which is a gain for those two programs since they won't pay out to those same people)
|
Correct. The "in the shadows" stuff is regime propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Mildly related through the medium of common citizens being screwed over by corporate interests. I'm sure we're all tired of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions which screw the common American, so for a change of pace, how about a 5-3 Supreme Court decision which screws the common American.
| Quote: |
Details: American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant
Earlier today the Court decided that an arbitration agreement that precludes arbitration brought by a class of plaintiffs is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if the proposed class of plaintiffs proves that it would be economically infeasible for individuals to pursue arbitration on their own.
The case arose out of a dispute between American Express (“Amex”) and a group of merchants who accept American Express cards for payment. The merchants claimed that Amex violated federal antitrust laws by using its monopoly power in the credit card market to charge inflated fees. The merchants had an agreement with Amex requiring all disputes to be resolved by arbitration, and that agreement provided that there was “no right or authority” to arbitrate on a “class action basis.” The merchants, however, formed a class and sued, arguing that the cost to an individual merchant to arbitrate vastly exceeded the potential recovery possible, and that Amex had used its monopoly power to compel arbitration agreements that preclude the enforcement of congressionally created rights.
Amex moved to compel individual arbitration of each dispute under the agreement and the FAA. The merchants fought that motion with testimony from an expert witness who testified that the costs of proving each antitrust claim (at least several hundred thousand dollars) would dwarf the potential recoveries of individual actions (roughly $12,000-38,000). The district court granted the motion and dismissed the suits. After several years of litigation, including one “grant, vacate, and remand” order from the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit held that individual arbitration could not be compelled.
In a five-to-three decision, the Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit. Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) holds that the FAA does not permit courts to invalidate arbitration agreements simply because the cost of individual arbitration may be high. According to the Court, nothing in federal law guarantees plaintiffs “an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every claim.” Moreover, the Court found that the judicially created “effective vindication” exception to the FAA could not be applied simply because individual arbitrations are more costly to litigate than they are often worth.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion to underscore that the result was required by the plain meaning of the FAA. Justice Kagan (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer) dissented, arguing that the FAA does not preclude exceptions to arbitration agreements when necessary to enforce congressionally created rights. Justice Sotomayor was recused from the case because she was a judge on the panel that decided the case in the Second Circuit. |
The Roberts Court is doing long term damage to our nation, and really all we can do is hope Scalia gets around to dying soon. What a political system, where political remedies revolve around hoping another human being dies. |
Unfortunately I don't think Scalia is going to be dying anytime soon.
And while clearly the Iraq War was a costly debacle, Bush's biggest damage to this country might have been appointing Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS. Then again, it could have been worse. Can you imagine if Harriet Miers had been confirmed and been put on the Supreme Court? Yikes. |
Before you dismiss Scalia, look at his opinions in issues relating to suspect rights. Same with Thomas. Also, look at Thomas' opinions on things like drugs and pornography (basically to be decided by the states).
A lot of people who don't follow the Court too closely tend to have these overly simplified opinions about how the justices will rule, but a lot of cases show that indeed, justices on all sides approach each case seriously and give a fair amount of nuance to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Before you dismiss Scalia, look at his opinions in issues relating to suspect rights. Same with Thomas. Also, look at Thomas' opinions on things like drugs and pornography (basically to be decided by the states). |
"Before you dismiss Hitler too quickly, look at his opinions relating to animal rights and scientific advancement." Scalia and Thomas don't have to be the Devil in order to warrant scorn; we needn't disagree with every single thing a person in authority has ever done in their position in order to disagree with them holding that authority, or to recognize that they wield it in a generally harmful fashion.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| A lot of people who don't follow the Court too closely tend to have these overly simplified opinions about how the justices will rule |
The Roberts Court sides with the Chamber of Commerce and business interests with statistical regularity, and at a higher rate than previous courts. There's nothing overly-simplified about that. The fact that Scalia and the boys may rule reasonable, arguably even laudably, on other issues doesn't make their business-related precedents, taken as a whole, any less damaging. In fact, I'm going to turn this around on you: your approach is the oversimplified one, since it ignores the data-driven trend (that the Roberts Court is strongly pro-business) and the impact it has on the nation, favoring to hand wave with some comment about how judges "seriously" approach their cases. A justice taking their job "seriously" and a justice being bad for the nation are not mutually exclusive by any means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| A lot of people who don't follow the Court too closely tend to have these overly simplified opinions about how the justices will rule, but a lot of cases show that indeed, justices on all sides approach each case seriously and give a fair amount of nuance to it. |
| Fox wrote: |
| The Roberts Court sides with the Chamber of Commerce and business interests with statistical regularity, and at a higher rate than previous courts. There's nothing overly-simplified about that. The fact that Scalia and the boys may rule reasonable, arguably even laudably, on other issues doesn't make their business-related precedents, taken as a whole, any less damaging. |
Each set of quotations above are true.
Can we all agree that Alito is terrible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an article from the Economist about it
http://www.economist.com/node/18866873
As far as being pro-business...it seems to be a rising trend and seems to have risen under every Chief Justice since Warren.
| Quote: |
| A study by Lee Epstein, William Landes and Richard Posner, entitled “Is the Roberts Court Pro-Business?”, drew similar conclusions. It found that the Supreme Court ruled in a pro-business fashion in 29% of cases under Chief Justice Earl Warren (who served from 1953 to 1969). Under Warren Burger (1969-86) the figure was 47%. Between 1986 and 2005, under Chief Justice Rehnquist, it was 51%. Under Chief Justice Roberts it has risen to 61% |
And there are notable cases in which the Justices have ruled against businesses.
| Quote: |
| But is the court really guilty as charged? Clearly, it is less hostile to enterprise than the Warren court was. Still, it does not always let businesses win. On June 6th it unanimously threw out a lower court's decision that restricted the ability of investors to bring a “fraud on the market” lawsuit against Halliburton, an oil-services firm. In 2009 the court allowed a lawsuit to proceed against Wyeth, a drug firm, for not putting a clear enough warning label on a drug, though its label had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. |
And an alternative explanation is given here for the apparent rise of pro-business rulings.
| Quote: |
| It is not so much that the court is pro-business; it is more that a majority of justices think there are too many lawsuits, argues Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog, a forum for learned discussion of the court. The upshot, since businesses are generally the targets of lawsuits, is that “they tend to do pretty well,” he says. |
My question. If Mr Goldstein's opinion is correct could this not, at least in significant part explain the rise in pro business decisions?
Of course this then leads to a question about Tom Goldstein himself and who is he to make such a claim. Well he isn't just some guy on a blog.
| Quote: |
| Tom is the Publisher and a regular contributor to the blog, which he co-founded with Amy Howe in 2002. He teaches Supreme Court litigation at Harvard Law School, and previously taught at Stanford Law School as well from 2004-2012. Tom has argued 28 cases before the Supreme Court. Among other recognitions, Tom has been named 1 of the 50 most influential people in Washington, D.C. (GQ); 1 of the 40 most influential lawyers of the past decade and the 100 most influential lawyers in the nation (NLJ); 1 of the 90 greatest Washington, D.C. lawyers of the past 30 years and the leading appellate lawyers in Washington (Legal Times); and 1 of the 30 best lawyers in Washington, D.C. (Washingtonian). |
http://www.scotusblog.com/author/tom-goldstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
And there are notable cases in which the Justices have ruled against businesses.
| Quote: |
| But is the court really guilty as charged? Clearly, it is less hostile to enterprise than the Warren court was. Still, it does not always let businesses win. On June 6th it unanimously threw out a lower court's decision that restricted the ability of investors to bring a “fraud on the market” lawsuit against Halliburton, an oil-services firm. In 2009 the court allowed a lawsuit to proceed against Wyeth, a drug firm, for not putting a clear enough warning label on a drug, though its label had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. |
|
So as long as they aren't so blatantly and obviously corrupt in their ideology that they side with big business literally 100% of the time, it's excusable? Because that's what you're implying here.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
And an alternative explanation is given here for the apparent rise of pro-business rulings.
| Quote: |
| It is not so much that the court is pro-business; it is more that a majority of justices think there are too many lawsuits, argues Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog, a forum for learned discussion of the court. The upshot, since businesses are generally the targets of lawsuits, is that “they tend to do pretty well,” he says. |
My question. If Mr Goldstein's opinion is correct could this not, at least in significant part explain the rise in pro business decisions? |
"Thinking there are too many lawsuits" is an ideological position in and of itself, especially when lawsuits are the primary vehicle of the weak (such as common citizens) to pursue rectification of the violations of the strong (such as large corporations). And that's taking the excuse in question at face value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
And there are notable cases in which the Justices have ruled against businesses.
| Quote: |
| But is the court really guilty as charged? Clearly, it is less hostile to enterprise than the Warren court was. Still, it does not always let businesses win. On June 6th it unanimously threw out a lower court's decision that restricted the ability of investors to bring a “fraud on the market” lawsuit against Halliburton, an oil-services firm. In 2009 the court allowed a lawsuit to proceed against Wyeth, a drug firm, for not putting a clear enough warning label on a drug, though its label had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. |
|
So as long as they aren't so blatantly and obviously corrupt in their ideology that they side with big business literally 100% of the time, it's excusable? Because that's what you're implying here.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
And an alternative explanation is given here for the apparent rise of pro-business rulings.
| Quote: |
| It is not so much that the court is pro-business; it is more that a majority of justices think there are too many lawsuits, argues Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog, a forum for learned discussion of the court. The upshot, since businesses are generally the targets of lawsuits, is that “they tend to do pretty well,” he says. |
My question. If Mr Goldstein's opinion is correct could this not, at least in significant part explain the rise in pro business decisions? |
"Thinking there are too many lawsuits" is an ideological position in and of itself, especially when lawsuits are the primary vehicle of the weak (such as common citizens) to pursue rectification of the violations of the strong (such as large corporations). And that's taking the excuse in question at face value. |
I'm not implying that it's excusable. I'm implying that the claim that the courts hold a ideological pro-business attitude is questionable based on the evidence provided so far. I don't think a rise in pro business decisions in and of itself means as much as others are subscribing to for the simple reason that there has been a long term rise over several Chief Justices tenures.
IF on the other hand it could be shown that they set numerous precedents when dealing with big businesses then yes that would be sufficient evidence.
As for the thinking that there may be too many lawsuits being an ideological position. Certainly. But all I'm pointing out here is the possibility of a number of these pro-business cases being decided on this ideological grounds rather than on the grounds of a pro-business ideological slant. Not of course that it makes it right if the business is clearly in the wrong.
As for taking the excuse at face value well yes. However given Mr. Goldstein's credentials and experience I should think his opinion should, at the very least weigh as much as anyone else's here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I'm not implying that it's excusable. |
I'm glad to hear that.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I'm implying that the claim that the courts hold a ideological pro-business attitude is questionable based on the evidence provided so far. |
Yet your alternative hypothesis -- that the justices simply think, "Oh, there are too many lawsuits!" -- is itself ideologically pro-business. The number of lawsuits, in-and-of itself, is not normative; it might imply a need for more judges, or more funding for our legal system, but assuming genuine legal justice is good, more legal justice obviously cannot in itself be bad. So one would obviously have to ask, "Well, why do you think there are too many lawsuits," and the answer is patently obvious, especially when these judges were generally appointed by pro-business conservative politicians.
Our justice system has been strongly politicized. It's disgraceful, and I'm not inclined to allow the issue to be obfuscated with vague apologetics. The statistics are obvious, and the alternative explanations are weak.
Last edited by Fox on Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I'm implying that the claim that the courts hold a ideological pro-business attitude is questionable based on the evidence provided so far. |
Big Business's Big Day
| Quote: |
[T]hree cases – all decided by 5-4 rulings along classic ideological lines – include two dealing with employment discrimination (Vance v. Ball State University and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar) and one dealing with a patient who alleges that she was severely injured by a generic drug’s side-effects (Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief in all three of these cases, winning all three. That improved the Chamber’s record before the Roberts Court this Term to thirteen wins and three losses, including an undefeated record in closely divided cases like Bartlett, Nassar, and Vance. Taken together, all three of these cases will greatly affect the lives of countless Americans nationwide. |
Partisan SCOTUS Majority limits discrimination and retaliation suits
| Quote: |
In a pair of 5-4 decisions Monday, the court ruled that only someone with the ability to hire or fire someone should be considered a supervisor in discrimination lawsuits. This definition will make it harder to blame a business for a co-worker's sexual or racially motivated harassment.
Meanwhile, the court also limited how juries can decide on retaliation lawsuits. An employee who alleges he was a victim of illegal retaliation must prove this was the reason for his firing, not one of several reasons. It is not enough to prove that illegal bias played some part in the decision, the court said. |
Note that in both cases, the clear middle ground would have been to have decided each factor goes to the weight of the evidence and to have left each issue to the jury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paid via Card, Workers Feel Sting of Fees
| Quote: |
| Taco Bell, Walgreen and Wal-Mart are among the dozens of well-known companies that offer prepaid cards to their workers; the cards are particularly popular with retailers and restaurants. And they are quickly gaining momentum. In 2012, $34 billion was loaded onto 4.6 million active payroll cards, according to the research firm Aite Group. Aite said it expected that to reach $68.9 billion and 10.8 million cards by 2017. |
Its totally legal to do this as long as the wage minus the fees exceed the minimum wage. Maybe it should not be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Paid via Card, Workers Feel Sting of Fees
| Quote: |
| Taco Bell, Walgreen and Wal-Mart are among the dozens of well-known companies that offer prepaid cards to their workers; the cards are particularly popular with retailers and restaurants. And they are quickly gaining momentum. In 2012, $34 billion was loaded onto 4.6 million active payroll cards, according to the research firm Aite Group. Aite said it expected that to reach $68.9 billion and 10.8 million cards by 2017. |
Its totally legal to do this as long as the wage minus the fees exceed the minimum wage. Maybe it should not be. |
Hard to work around the huge number of people who don't have bank accounts. If you give them checks they'll go to a check cashing store and pay 3-4% (plus fees!). Some kind of regulatory response is needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
