I don't know why people get so upset about all these corporate legal decisions. They're just good old fashioned kickbacks to the guys who put them on the bench. I mean doesn't Mitch McConnell deserve to have all these rulings go his way, since he did all the work getting Gorsuch on the bench? Why shouldn't justice only serve the rich and powerful? After all, they're the ones running the show, paying all the taxes and doing all the hard work in this country.
The workers need to learn their place and be thankful they are getting paid anything at all. I mean seriously, what a bunch of crybabies. Workers are getting the rights the rights they deserve. Which are exactly the rights they voted for.
And don't get me started on Unions. The single most damaging and un-American idea ever conceived.
What this country really needs is a return to indentured servitude. And we need to get rid of the minimum wage, the weekend, overtime, unemployment benefits, and most importantly, we need to bring back debtors prisons and work gangs.
I know, it would be a real Republican dream come true!
When are these "workers" going to stop complaining and start worrying about the real victims in this country? People like Tim Cook and the Koch brothers. These guys are really suffering right now.
5
Let's face it, "workers" are people who just weren't smart enough to be born rich, like Donald Trump.
And now they want to get all uppity and complain about their "rights". It's a joke. Workers don't have rights. They don't deserve them because they're not "job creators", just "job doers".
Frankly, I think workers should show a little more class, and show some respect for these decisions coming from the highest, and certainly fairest, court in the land.
Most importantly, workers need to learn their place. And decisions like this one, and others, show them exactly where that it.
3
I'm quite displeased with the decision, but any boo-hooing about the decision isn't germane if the decision was legally correct. If Congress created newer legislation that didn't supersede previous legislation, then the original legislation remains valid.
NYT, your opinion is fine, but let's be intellectually honest and say how the SCOTUS opinion, while distasteful, is the more correct interprentation.
4
Welcome to Mitch McConnell's Supreme Court. Anyone who thinks that the Republican Party is interested in working people should see this as more evidence of that myth. Gorsuch's "logic" is sadly vicious.
16
There have been a few Republicans whose hyper partisanship has long term negative impact on all of us. Mitch McConnell leads that pack with his choice to oppose anything Obama tried to accomplish. McConnell's unethical choice to deny Obama his right to nominate a Supreme Court judge stains McConnell's record forever. We can't know how Garland would have voted on this or any other case. We do however know his record is that of a fair minded moderate. Unfortunately the phrase "fair minded" can never be used to describe Mitch McConnell.
16
As usual the oligarchs win and the citizen loses. Unions need to come back. Surely they are no more corrupt than the controllers of the levers of power.
10
"Unless, that is, voters who care about things like workers’ rights show up in November and return the Senate to Democratic control."
This same statement was just as true in November 2016, and look what we got. Please forgive me if I do not have much hope.
7
This is pretty much what I expected of this right leaning Supreme Court. Yet, there may be a silver lining if workers have the courage to grasp it. While individual workers can not realistically bargain with an employer who insists on a mandatory arbitration clause to resolve all disputes, workers who unionize have the ability to change the outcome and demand the right to court resolution of statutory claims through collective bargaining. (Ironically, and for a variety of reasons, labor arbitration has worked well in the context of collective bargaining in breach of contract cases) Can unions capitalize on this feature of collective bargaininig? Can workers gather the courage to join unions? Only time will tell, and the recent history is not good.
5
"...for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." These are the words at issue in the case. A law suit has nothing to do with either collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The dissent argument is nice history but not persuasive after reading the relevant statutes. The editorial is simply a knee jerk opposition to Gorsuch, and thus to Trump, without analysis of the applicable statutes. Moreover, the real issue is missed by the Editorial Board - it isn't Trump or Gorsuch, it is Congress that should be the focus of the results oriented critique of the dissent and the editorial. As for Garland, if you read his opinions on the DC Circuit, and if you are objective, then it will immediately be evident that Garland is a company man. That is, if the government wants it, Garland was all too willing to agree. The last thing this country needs is a Supreme Court justice who favors the government. Study the "Chevron deference" theory and, if you are objective and have good reading comprehension, you'll see that courts implementing "Chevron deference" are abdicating their role of enforcing law by letting the executive branch make law and then the courts refuse properly to review those executive, administrative "laws." Merrick Garland would have been destructive of personal rights and separation of powers. Try to be objective rather than automatically damning everything about Trump.
3
This ruling is another proof of the folly of believing in the so-called exceptional level of "wisdom" of the framers of our Constitution. The idea that the privilege of a Supreme Court justice to serve for life in any way reduces the prejudice he or she brings to the position is completely illogical. There have been examples of justices who were enlightened during their terms, for sure, and who perhaps changed their positions. But that has been the rare exception rather than the rule. Rather than allowing a justice to explore various viewpoints, it most often condemns us to suffering for our entire lives with unqualified, mentally-challenged, inflexible justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Alito earlier in his career thought we'd all be better off if we were allowed to own submachine guns and that women should be required to notify their husbands before seeking abortions. The two were picked, no doubt, for their unwavering dedication to neanderthal notions from centuries past, and because of their relatively young ages.
A prediction: if the Supreme Court continues to trample on the fortunes of the common folk, we will continue to see US birthrates go down drastically as is currently the case, and the education level and mental health of most citizens deteriorate, resulting in a stifling of our economy, a dangerous daily environment, and the ending of the US as the world's preeminent nation. Indeed, on could make a good argument that this has already happened.
3
This would be funny if it were not so tragic. This episode again illustrates how important it is to select a president who can read and write, and think beyond stream-of-consciousness mutterings of idiocy. This is not intended to be cynical. A minority of us elected him. I was not one of them. In honesty, I chose between what I thought were two bad candidates. I continue to believe my choice was correct.
4
It is the blatantly wrong-headed Citizens United decision that permits unlimited sums of money to corrupt elections and candidates. But money in politics has been ruinous for generations.
What we need is not only a democratic senate to forestall nominations such as Gorsuch's and McConnell's proud moments -- many of which he's having as we speak -- but a commitment to mandatory public campaign financing.
If there is no money to be made from public service, then we wouldn't have the grifters and avaricios drawn to the task of emptying public coffers.
But this court is not merely conservative. It is reactionary -- and the most right-wing anti-labor court in a long, long time.
10
I work in an union school (at least until Janus is decided) and some Trump voters regret their votes now for what see as attacks on them. I guess their white skin is not impervious to Trumpism.
10
Many of remember when there was a Supreme Court and a USA. When Reagan came along and nominated Bork and Scalia there was no longer a Supreme Court or what we remember as the USA.
You now have the Scalia Court and Trumpylvania.
I hope this op-ed signals the end of the denial phase the courts of inquisition will be in power for the next two generations and the polarization may never disappear.
Let this Deist say God bless you all it is too late to bless America.
10
Congress needs to change this so that individuals aren't forced into arbitration. It didn't pass muster at the Supreme Court. Congress must change this so that an individual's right to a court hearing is set in stone.
I'm not talking class action where plaintiffs get stiffed and lawyers buy their third vacation homes.
This is about the right of an individual to take a company to court or to have a court settle a work issue. It's a matter of what's right and a matter of basic rights.
There is a problem: Democratic leaders favor the already wealthy and are as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. So I doubt they will leap upon this issue.
6
Although both the laws in Epic date back to the early-to-mid 20th century, it was only in 2012 that the NLRB – “for the first time in the 77 years since the NLRA’s adoption” (Gorsuch) – indicated that “the NLRA effectively nullifies the” Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in such cases.
It took 77 years for the NLRB to figure this out! After all this time, you'd think that the NLRB would seek out Congress's help clearing this up. Instead, the Board usurped Congress's powers by illegally amending the law.
Whatever happened to the NYT's advocacy for "stare decisis" and the principle of respecting citizens' settled expectations?
3
As the editorial states, "No surprise, then, that the use of mandatory arbitration clauses by nonunionized companies has skyrocketed, from 2 percent in 1992 to 54 percent today." It was barely an issue previously. And as you may know, in 2012 the House was led by John Boehner, who surely wouldn't agree to any unnecessary regulations from a radical NLRB.
3
Arbitration clauses in employment contracts were considered unenforceable outside of the union context until 1991, when the Supreme Court held that they were enforceable in this case:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/20/case.html.
Before that, the NLRB and the Supreme Court took it for granted that class actions counted as concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA. This decision ignores decades of longstanding precedent to protect businesses from addressing allegations of systematic discrimination, wage theft, deception, and other wrongdoing.
Ain't no one got time to consult an attorney - which usually involves drafting a timeline, faxing/scanning/emailing documents, several interviews, in-person meetings, etc. on one's own dime - just to file a case over a few dollars or even a few thousand dollars (and then sit for day-long depositions, attend hearings/mediations, participate in follow up interviews by their attorneys, respond to requests for documents and information, stress about the case for years until it is resolved, etc.). People have work, kids, older parents to care for, their own medical issues, and other important time commitments.
Voters should elect representatives committed to guaranteeing regular people a realistic way to publicly fix large-scale corporate wrongdoing. Until then: “[t]he realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”
4
The Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 was an obscure law designed for a specific purpose that has been dug up by American corporations to do anything they wish to matter how wrong, how illegal, how harmful. it's use is a disgraceful perversion of the law and there defence of it's use in this way should anger all American workers. The best solution is to stop reading and pick up you phone. Call your 2 senators and your house representative now. One message: Repeal the Arbitration Act of 1925.
Isn't it time for the the reactionary Gang of Four Justices to step down? Justice MeToo Thomas, please apologize to Ms Hill on your way out...leave the door open. Gorsuch, think of your lifetime appointment as a kind of wacky law school prank; the collegial joviality enjoyed during your confirmation continues. Justices Roberts and Alito remember when people didn't confuse you guys? White obstructionist jurists have never once been an unrepresented minority on the Federal Bench and you two leaving will not be missed, nor will your interests go undefended.
Gentlement kindly work out the paperwork and submit it effective mid-January 2019 (original work only, no clerks please). We the People need to protect and defend this Constitution and arbitration isn't mentioned there.
7
Every time the media uses the term "Supreme Court" instead of "Illegitimate Supreme Court" or "Stolen Supreme Court" they help to legitimize and normalize Constitutional theft. So, please, stop doing it.
How about calling it the "McConnell Court"? Or, the "Corporate Court"? Or, the "Court of Moral Bankruptcy"?
Because the only thing "Supreme" about it now is it's arrogance and disdain for human decency.
8
My legal friends tell me that I should look at which way the "swing vote" justice, "Justice Kennedy" votes.
For example, when Scalia had died and the court tied 4-4 regarding the case of DACA at the Supreme Court, Kennedy voted that Obama overstepped his authority as The President to implement DACA, that it is the job Congress to legislate. Thus, even liberal lawyers agreed that DACA was illegal.
In this particular care, Justice Kennedy voted for the employers -- Kennedy agrees with Gorsuch.
Thus, this is not an article about Trump appointee Justice Gorsuch siding for the employer over the employee, but rather as the court stated, it is the job of Congress to pass a law ensuring that employees should be able to file a class action.
Since swing vote Justice Kennedy sided with the employers, an astute reader would ask why didn't the NYT Editorial Board discuss Justice Kennedy's vote instead of Gorsuch?
I hope The Editorial Board will be intellectually honest and address in a separate article why Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, sided with the employers over the employees.
5
Because Gorsuch wrote the majority opinon and has a long record of hostility toward working people. Many of these people voted for Trump, based on, among other things, his promises to them. I wonder when--and if--they will ever figure it out that they've been had.
7
Again, the decision was because the swing Justice Kennedy voted for employers. If Scalia had not died, the outcome would have been the same.
A far more interesting editorial would have been to discuss why the swing Justice made his decision since this is the one that made the difference.
Trump (as well as Sanders) is more pro-labor than Clinton. Dem. Sen Ohio Sherrod Brown supports Trump's attempts to renegotiate NAFTA and implement steel tariffs.
Both Trump and Sanders spoke out against Carrier exporting Indiana jobs to Mexico. They both spoke out against Disney replacing 250 STEM workers with H1-B abusing Indian immigrants. Clinton was silent in both instances.
The decision only means that Congress will have to pass legislation to make what some though was implied to be more explicit.
"“The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written,” the justice wrote. If Congress wants to change the law, he added, it’s free to do so."
Amen .... and thank you ...
4
The Supremes, with their new antebellum majority decided in Citizens United that, in terms of speech, corporations are people. Now they've decided that they are an even higher class of people, ones who can hire "arbitrators" who routinely side with them and force workers to comply with pro-management rulings. I'll believe corporations are people when they can give blood. We can thank McConnell for this. His egregious denial of a hearing for Justice Garland allowed Trump to appoint someone with complete disdain for the rights of the non-wealthy.
6
"I don't trust Hillary, and maybe Trump won't be that bad after all. I mean, I don't like either one of them, but...."
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Both parties are NOT the same. Voting for ANY Republican for President has consequences. Ultra-conservative courts are one of them.
NOW do you get it?
10
This story should be covered extensively in the news media so that workers who voted for Trump and continue to support him know to the consequences of their vote. Even when Trump campaigned to stand for the little guy, he was never sincere. With a Republican majority in Congress, a Republican president, and a conservative majority Supreme Court, the rich will continue to have the upper hand. Now, let's see if the Democrats will be able to seize on this bad decision of SCOTUS and convince long term Democrats who voted for Trump to give them a majority in 2018 and deny Trump a second term in 2020. The decision of SCOTUS against workers rights should be nullified with a Democratic majority Congress, hopefully in the very near future.
11
This case demonstrates again that judicial "interpretation" is not, and cannot be, value free, but is dictated by the judge's political, moral and social beliefs. The statutory words, protecting collective action for the purposes of mutual aid, would seem plainly to embrace class litigation, but the majority deployed a number of very dubious legal techniques to strip the words of their natural meaning. The more that the judicial process is seen to be politicised in this way, the more political will become the process of selecting judges. In the end the quality and independence of judges will be severely compromised, and they will literally become the caricature "politicians in robes".
3
Why are we surprised? Gorsuch, if he had any decency in him,would have refused Trump's nomination, but the object of the "conservative" bloc is a servile working class so concerned with survival that any political action is impossible.
The United States we knew is gone.
11
This IS the SAME United States that we knew. The Supreme Court almost never hears cases related to labor and if they do, they historically vote in favor of business owners. This is the same United States.
I would appreciate it if the NY Times would clearly identify the companies, so we can show our anger through boycotts.
It is not ok to treat people like this!
2
This is one of the worst news items of the week with far-reaching consequences. How come we are not hearing more about this? It's one more nail in the coffin of workers' rights. It's a cataclysmic decision that should have never happened.
14
C'mon, you KNOW why we don't hear more about it. There is so MUCH they're doing in the background to remove the rights of all but oligarchs that it's hard to focus any more.
3
I was weary of unions in the '60's and '70's, and believed the pendulum needed to swing more to the right. Folks, we have swung more to than the right than the scale allows. As "Spinal Tap" this is an "eleven". Folks, we need to regain our rightful footing as equal Americans.
VOTE!
7
This unconscionable decision by the conservative supremes only shows how politicized their rulings have become . Arbitration prevents people from getting a fair shake and assures they will remain owing their souls to the company store . Let us not forget the "stolen seat " stacking the deck against the people . This isn't government for the people by the people , but by the corporations for the corporations . Welcome to the new America of serfdom .
10
True, Republicans don't care about the working class...but NEITHER do Democrats. My wife and I, who were only earning $11 and $13 an hour at the time, paid a $1,400 fine for not buying a lousy, exploitative healthcare policy pushed by Democrats. The unemployed folks next door in our apartment building were given free healthcare under the ACA.
Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pushed for TPP, etc.
If you are working class, feel free to vote Republican or Democrat. It really makes no difference at all. Vote on social issues, bathrooms, whatever. Class no longer matters in mainstream American politics. Both parties are against the working class.
2
Do you really think it makes no difference? Just wait. Your resentment about health care might warm you at night, but you didn't need to pay the fine. You did need to look at your options. My guess is that you didn't. You don't like trade agreements? Then I bet you like paying higher prices at the store. Do you think that the tax bill will improve your life? Do you think that a cut in social services will help you?
The Democrats have a lot to answer for, but you have drunk the Republican Kool-Aid. It's okay. You are doing exactly what they want you to do. Nice job.
5
You should talk to this guy I know. His name is Bernie.
1
Pleas stop referring to the this court as the Supreme Court, it is not, it is the Illegitimate Supreme Court.
5
Is the Supreme Court still legitimate as an arbiter of law?
Gorsuch's occupancy of a seat on the bench is wholly illegitimate, a theft that has destroyed my trust in the court and certainly causes me to look at these ridiculously partisan decisions with not simply skepticism, but disgust and rage.
There's not actually all that much distance between the norms-busting, Constitution-destroying Sen. McConnell and the president, whose disregard for law threatens the country's future.
Is this the freedom our nation promises? The freedom to rampage the law in the service of a grotesque kleptocracy and call it governance?
Are there any left in the Republican party who will put country before party?
9
Why shouldn't corporations have more rights than people? After all, the Illegitimate Supreme Court has been stacked with Fascists appointed by Fascists.
It's too bad that it isn't only Republican workers that are going to get shafted by this kangaroo court.
4
The new york times supported the corporate candidate Clinton and tried to shut out Bernie, so, in my view the Times contributed to this mess. Today the NY Times is still supporting the Wall Street Wing of the Democrat party, which is their prerogative, but, like the national democrats seem to have learned little over the past three years.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
6
Garland is not on the Supreme Court because Obama was the most feckless, weak, and limp-wristed President we have had in generations. Yes, blame McConnell and the corrupt republicans for blocking Garlands nomination. But where was the punishment from Obama for the republicans shooting a torpedo into his nomination of Garland? Nowhere. Do you think either side of the Congress would have dared do something like that to LBJ, or Nixon? Never, because there would have been hell to pay for even trying. Military contracts cancelled. Defense contractor plants closed. Federal grants withdrawn. Federal road money disappears. McConnell and the Congressional republicans rolled Obama like a carpet, because they knew they could. Obama would give a regal pronunciation of his disgust - and that would be it. No political hard ball, no political pay back, no political retribution of any kind would come their way, and the Congressional republicans knew it.
It is a travesty that the republicans were able to deny Garland his rightful place on the Supreme Court. And now that Obama has handed the conservative maniacs on the Supreme Court their all important 5th vote again, we are stuck with 5-4 decisions that will crush average Americans for who knows how much longer.
Thanks Obama. Enjoy your book deals and Netflix production contracts and all the money you are raking in. The rest of us who counted on you to stick up for us - you let us down. And now we are all hosed.
6
Obama could have made a recess appointment of Garand but didn't. Six months of Garland on SCOTUS would have cost Hillary the election, and in March 2016, Obama thought the fix was in.
Democrats did not approve Bork, and we got Kennedy instead. That was not a good deal for America, and certainly not for Republicans. It is disingenuous to act as though Democrats are saintly.
On three occasions, Eisenhower made recess appointments to SCOTUS . The pretense that the failure to confirm Garland was some sort of historic or Constitutional event is absurd.
Reid stole two seats on the DC Court of Appeals from Bush. One SCOTUS seat seems like a fair trade.
Next time, the autocratic leadership of the Democrat Party should anoint a better nominee for president rather than picking the next guy in line with the most money.
2
Please don't call the majority on the Supreme Court "conservatives", because they are not. They are bought-and-paid for political hacks, who for the most part were put on the court to act as corporate hit men.
Clarence Thomas so far has miraculously escaped scrutiny by the #metoo movement, but his confirmation hearings are memorable for the accusations that he had a porn habit;
John Roberts and Samuel Alito came to the court via the administration of George W. Bush, who stole two elections to put them there.
As this column points out, Gorsuch shouldn't be sitting on the court at all, and if he had an ounce of integrity would have turned the seat down. My only hope is that he will be impeached if it is found that Trump's election was so irreparably tainted by foreign interference that it needs to be entirely undone.
Anthony Kennedy was put on the bench by Poppy Bush, whose presidency only survived because he pardoned the four men whose testimony would have had him impeached over Iran/Contra. Of the five, he has the most honest claim to being "conservative".
Republican donors should be very happy with this SCOTUS - it is the best that money can buy.
8
How about change our names to (insert name) inc.? This way we might have the rights of other people (I mean fellow corporations) some day.
3
"If you wanted to measure just how different the Supreme Court is with the addition of Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland — who should be sitting in Justice Gorsuch’s seat but for the outrageous machinations of Senate Republicans..."
Dear Editorial Board,
If you can find anywhere in the Constitution that the Senate is required to meet to confirm or deny any presidential nominee, please let us know. Had roles been reversed I doubt you would have made any fuss about it.
1
we know what the Democrats would have done if the roles were reversed ... just ask Joe Biden ...
1
Thanks for this Editorial.
Another example of violence from Republican policies.
https://www.legalreader.com/republican-racketeers-violent-policies/
1
So the big question is how can we get rid of Gorsuch once it has been established that the Trump presidency was fraudulently gained. Also, why not just ignore them all and have a national strike, say on election day. A full bore national strike, bring the nation to a halt. Everyone who is pro union take the day off and go vote these monsters out.
4
So, it's official! Corporations aren't just persons, they are super persons with rights and privileges superior to flesh and blood citizens.
Good work "conservatives"!
5
Well. Judge Garland would be sitting on the bench had Hillary Clinton bothered to campaign in Wisconsin.
2
If you deprive enough people of the opportunity for economic advancement and allow the wealthiest few to game the system for their own benefit and you do it long enough, you invite revolution. If you had been in France in the late 1700s you could have asked Marie Antoinette and her ilk about this - until you couldn't.
8
Right ON! However, reality takes a long time to filter down to "everyone", particularly if you wear Trump-colored glasses. I'm saying it would be quite extreme to the people who saw it coming before the people who didn't could accept that it's actually happening and *then* there might be a revolution. Maybe. If it gets so bad our stomachs are hurting and we're all sleeping under the bushes, maybe then...
1
Arbitration, isn't that what the slaveowners offered the black women they wanted to have relations with back in the 19th century? Who in their right mind would opt for arbitration in a labor dispute, rather than submit the issue to litigation and trial? Another wrong turn by SOCUS to drive us straight back into the 1850s, I see...
3
Unfettered capitalism is a hungry beast.
3
Remember, Trumpers - this is what Trump told you you were getting if you voted for him.
We tried to tell you exactly what that would mean. Now you know.
8
Everything in Bizarro World of Trumpland is about the Court, which makes it about the Senate, which makes it about the November election. Full stop.
2
Funny – the editorial board sometime ago decried the concept that Justices were just “sock puppets” of the President who wanted to appoint them. It claimed that Garland was an independent thinker and no one could tell how he would vote. But now, it seems to know exactly how Garland would have voted had he been on the Court. Because of course, the Times board knows that he indeed would’ve been Obama’s sock puppet, voting in lockstep with the four left-wing Justices.
2
You can thank Putin for Gorsuch and the illigitimate president who appointed him. Better change the balance in November or Russian authoritarianism will rule for many destructive years!
1
Merrick Garland again? Seriously? How about blaming Clinton and the Dems for foisting her candidacy for the loss of that Supreme Court seat. As for Gorsuch, he's a brilliant jurist. But this is an ideological war, liberals v. conservatives, and we know what side the NYT is on. I'd take what the editorial board said with more than the grain of salt I do now if it showed an announce of understanding and objectivity. Instead, it's editorials are written on a left wing template, with little meaning to those outside its small sphere of influence.
2
To all the working class voters, who vote Republican. Wake up, and open your eyes. The GOP, the President, and the Supreme Court, could care less about you ! They work exclusively for Corporations, the Donor Class, and the Top Two Per Cent.
You'll get nothing and like it, and Fox News will convince you how lucky you are.
3
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but didn't the Democrats control Congress and the White House for extended periods since 1932? If they had so desired, could they not have passed legislation favorable to workers?
2
The Wagner Act, passed in 1935. Look it up, even on Wikipedia. There were many subsequent laws enacted. And, by the way, despite what Gorsuch thinks or writes, the Wagner Act essentially made the Arbitration Act of 1925 unimportant because it exoanded workers' rights of association and organization. The Wagner Act did not have to specifically repeal the Arbitration Act for it to have that effect. Like a lot of lawyers, Gorsuch cherry-picks the historical record for his agenda. That's part of the court room game, if you will: Winning.
3
I bet most of the workers who are on the losing end of this decision are more concerned about restrictive gun laws than they are about whether they can file class actions and whether the overtime rules are broadened to cover them. So guess who they will vote for?
4
My high school lessons in government "checks and balances" always seem to pop into my head at times like this -- when I realize we have none.
But it's not just that the GOP owns Congress, the Courts and the Executive branch; that would be bad enough. No, the real problem is that the GOP is, in fact, owned by massive multinational corporations, whose agendas are, generally speaking, anathema to that of your average citizen. GOP lawmakers and GOP Supremes are just their enablers. Their bagmen.
Until we (doubtful) force money out of politics, I have little hope that we'll get this grand experiment back on track.
9
Employee's are commodities. We are necessary to companies to create and manufacture the products that make them and their investors rich. We are tools. We are disposable and easily replaced. Coming to grips with that is painful, but necessary in our new america. Workers are imported because of unfulfilled technical demands inaccessible and incomprehensible to the available local work force. The middle class will fade away in a couple decades replaced by an underclass to the rich. It's already happening and decisions like those of the supreme court strengthen the strangle-hold of the 1%... Welcome to the new world order.
4
To me, this is the essence of the campaign to elect Trump and the GOP's continuing support of Trump. Anyone who earns less than $300,000 and votes for the GOP is not interested in economics issues. Maybe such voters are against abortion, or in favor of owning lots of semi-automatic guns, but they are not in favor of workers getting an honest day's pay. The Trump voters really need to think about that. I have and will vote against every GOP candidate on Nov 6.
5
There's something thuggish about this whole thing from the usurped supreme court seat to the president installed by a foreign power. From Democracy to Thugocracy.
5
So true. And Trump has been a thug surrounded by thugs for a long time.
1
I have been an employment attorney representing employees in federal court for 35 years. I practice mostly in Jacksonville, Florida, a very conservative, business-friendly arena. Our federal appellate court in Atlanta, the 11th Circuit, is regarded by my peers around the country as the most business-friendly in the nation.
Representing employees has become harder and harder these past 15 years or so. Cases that should be going to trial are being tossed out by judges who seem eager to get rid of them. And the judges are backed up, for the most part, by the 11th Circuit which is backed up, for the most part, by the Supreme Court.
There are consequences to allowing a moron plutocrat like Trump to become President, and for allowing the eager lapdogs of plutocrats, like McConnell and Ryan, to hold positions of authority in our government.
The saddest and most frustrating part is that so many people are unable to understand the underhandedness of these Republican carpetbaggers and scalawags. The laborer in a rusted out truck drives down the road with his idiotic "Trump" sticker on his crooked bumper. He doesn't know it, but the bumper sticker really says, "I'm not educated enough, or otherwise smart enough, to realize that I am supporting a guy who kicks me in the ba__s on a daily basis."
This new kick from the Supreme Court means that things will only get worse until Congress changes the law.
Please everyone: please vote in Nov. for Democrats across the board.
30
Another Trump appointee looking out for those, "with no voice". The middle class and poor are doomed. The rich can use us up and toss us away like trash.
7
What did you expect from this tainted body of "jurists" when the one in the stolen seat ruled that a man was supposed to freeze to death for his employer rather than abandon a few bucks worth of merchandise in order to save his life? It is LIFE that is first mentioned in the Constitution, not profit. Tell that to the corporate crony clowns wearing SCOTUS robes now. Gorsuch and Roberts - Dauntless Defenders of the Overdog. Hey, middle American Christians, you got your anti-abortion judge by enabling Trump. Too bad you had to throw out your workplace protections, job security, and economic ladder to get him.
9
Imagine if the NY Times would give its readers an asterisk.
I have long suggested that the NY Times and other media add an asterisk e,g. (R*) or (D*) after every Judge indicating the party that nominated them to the bench.
To do otherwise is to perpetuate the myth that judges are apolitical.
I think of it as we continue to breathe polluted air.
I was fired for blowing the whistle on Nixon's EPA changing the auto emission test procedures to allow higher pollution. My law suit went all the way to the Supreme Court and we all lost. See https://www.legalreader.com/50-years-of-legal-climate-change/
3
How’s that free market working ....for the employer! So American this editorial.
Have a bid’ness page but no labour page? Hmmm.
But thanks for the mention.
You have been Gorsuched!
3
I say - let the workers suffer; better yet, let them starve! Maybe hunger will awake a demand for better treatment from their political leaders and extinguish the idea that this is all caused by people of color. Let them starve!
Serfdom. Indentured servitude. Slavery. If your business model depends on people who work living in poverty, your business model is theft.
12
So...!
On the punch list, how far along are we to being a fascist, corp. entity? It was already known and accepted that we had become an oligarchy/plutocracy. Our current squatter, Benedict Donald, has given away our resources and the keys to the car, to any, and all, that pat him on his head and stuff bills into his tighty whities. (Sorry for that pic.)
My only condolence is, the cockroach like ability of humans to stand back up and retake, reclaim and remake their countries.
All great empires over extend and or over reach with their inhabitants. Thus the ending and the correction.
The great swinging of the pendulum is tumultuous and often rift with heart ache and struggle, but the rebirth of our nation is usually a new step forward.
Sad that America might have to go thru this but...history repeats itself.
So...how far along are we?!
5
This is painful to watch. Diminishing the role and rights of labor diminishes the American spirit, and derails actual progress toward economic justice. No doubt the sweep of history will reverse all of this nonsense. These ineffectual judges, as their counterparts in business do, lack the imagination that guides greatness. Boring, dull-witted, robotic to the point of inanimate, they retard the energy of progress leaving us with Walmart economics. Competitiveness is drying up under the guise of financial expansion. When the wave reoccurs this stupidity will be washed away, cleansed by youth again.
5
#1 - People who care about this issue need to create a way for everyone to recognize which companies require employees to arbitrate, and then boycott those companies. I.e., award a "Fair Employer" certification.
#2 - People who have a choice of employer need to exercise choice to punish companies who require employees to arbitrate. I for one will not work for such a company.
#3 - The labor lobby should give up trying to overturn this case on the same day the Republicans give up trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.
#4 - Voters need to elect a Congress that will act. Democratic politicians should commit to passing a law expressly prohibiting these abusive, compulsory arbitration agreements that companies impose on employees and customers.
5
Hey MAGA-heads! Your boy Donald Trump just threw you under the bus, as he has all those who think he will do anything for them. And by the way, keep screaming Gorsuch! Gorsuch! Gorsuch! whenever anyone criticizes Trump. Gorsuch and his buddies just robbed you blind. You may be exploited by your employer, who may steal your wages, not pay overtime, and deny you workers' rights, but you won't be able to do anything about it. And all of your co-workers will have to submit to individual arbitration--even if there are thousands of them suffering the same indignities and abuse. Your wages will decline with inflation, and you won't be able to do a thing about it, thanks to your president.
Yeah, you really cast your votes for a doozy. Trump is really making your life better (NOT!)
10
The sophists of SCOTUS doing the bidding of greedy employers who've lost any sense of balance and fairness.
Justice Gorsuch, you've been appointed for life. Do you really want your legacy to be... he was a 'petit joueur'?
2
He’s a revanchist judge. His mother was vanquished from the EPA for the corrupt polluter she was. Like Clarence Thomas, he really has it in for the progressive agenda.
3
With your otherwise command of the English language, dear New York Times, can't you find another word to describe that political fringe than "conservative"?
2
The individuals most affected by this egregious Republican SCOTUS decision have the recource to form Unions. But, sadly, ignorance of the benefits of Unionization elude them and they see paying Union dues as too onerous. Propaganda against Unions has caused the people who would most benefit from such membership to become greater victims of Corporations who care only about profit on the backs of Labor, labor without which they would have no profit.
American workers who have been forced into contract jobs need to unite and demand reasonable guaranteed wages and benefits. SCOTUS be damned. Wake up American workers and Unite. You will otherwise never get a fair deal from Corporations .
6
Trump supporters are the ones who voted for”right to work” (for nothing) laws and the republicans who espoused them.
1
The Supreme Court is anything - but. Selling out to corporate interests has been par for the course for the past 20 years. Once again, ordinary workers get the shaft. Some day, the workers will rise up and correct this.
5
So the way it stands now this big tax break given to large corporations that was supposed to "trickle down" to the rank and file really doesn't have to happen and if the employees feel they are being underpaid SCOTUS says tough nuts.
Trump is no different than any other politician that promises better wagers, more jobs etc. He just has a better line of BS and a group of followers that believe he can do no wrong.
The outsourcing of jobs and stagnant wages for the jobs that are still here in the states coupled with the extremely high national debt will ultimately be the destruction of the society as we know it unless something changes immediately.
I really don't care if a major Chinese company is losing money, I care about the company I work for and the rest of the industries in this country. So far I haven't seen Trump change anything to bring jobs back or increase US wages. It's obvious by his Supreme Court pick that Trump says one thing but does another.
3
Had a Democratic senate majority leader continuously blocked a Republican president's supreme court justice pick, Republicans lawmakers would have made sure there'd be hell to pay. Even with a Democratic majority, a justice picked by a new president wouldn't have gone down. The trickery and mean-spiritedness on the Republicans' part would have prevented it. So, this decision only reinforces that a miscarriage of justice occurred at the highest level. To not remedy this is to allow oligarchic tyranny to occur. We're letting democracy slip through our fingers. What are you going to about it, Democratic lawmakers? There's a burgeoning population of young progressive voters, by the way. They're watching this and how you're not addressing it.
5
With Trump's daily nonsense America's working class, most of us, are not paying too much attention on how the Republicans and Trump are bringing us back to the Gilded Age.
How the hell does Justice Gorsuch sleep at night knowing the arbitration law brings workers to their knees in law cases.
6
So what?
The Supreme Court of the United States in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson denied the humanity of enslaved African 'workers' and the equality of African 'workers' in America. Slavery and Jim Crow were both legal.
The fact that the theft of Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination by the Confederate heir to Jefferson Davis aka the son of Alabama, Addison Mitchell McConnell, Jr., mattered in this case majority opinion exposes the law for what it is. Law is gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, faith, socioeconomics, politics education and history plus arithmetic. The law is not fair nor just nor moral nor objective.
Corporations are not people. Money is not speech. People who work for their money are not equal to people whose money works for them.
'The law is an ass'. from 'Oliver Twist' by Charles Dickens.
5
I listened to an NPR interview with Mitch McConnell this morning. He said that his push for the rest of this term would be judicial appointments. He is proud of what they have done to the courts so far and sees it as a big win for "conservatives." Wow. By the next election, there's no way an ordinary citizen will have any expectation of justice from the federal courts. We are so screwed, but of course, we did it to ourselves.
3
What next Corporate American indentured servitude contracts in order for us to be hired?
9
Conservatives who extol the virtues of "free markets" apparently do not believe that those virtues extend to working people. In a truly free market, workers are free to organize their numbers as counterbalance to the excesses of the controllers of capital. Without checks and balances, the system lacks the capacity for self correction and it becomes unstable. The result is gross inequity, environmental damage and a fractured and dysfunctional political system. Sound familiar?
The plutocrats are only interested in their own freedom and when given a free hand, they will self-destruct. Apparently they can't help themselves, and this Supreme Court will not stand n their way.
11
The USSR succeeded in in achieving what its managing tyrants believed was absolute power over its workers. What those tyrants failed to understand was the gradually accumulating response of the workers they abused. Intimidated into a posture of apparent compliance, workers acquired the coping style of passive resistance expressed with cynical humor: "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." That evolved into the greatest bloodless revolution in history.
For six decades U.S. corporations and their political shills have succeeded in steadily diminishing their workers rights for contract negotiations and redress of grievances. As the once great American Middle Class continues to shrink, corporate profits continue to boom.
The U.S. isn't Russia (yet), but human nature is a universal constant. As Thomas Jefferson observed:
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them (citizens) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
MAGA, indeed!
8
The American Republican Party: Architect of the modern feudal system.
Unfortunately, many families, due to low income, are already reduced to purchasing cheap Chinese goods. Many families are barely holding on through use of our minimal social safety net- which is the next Republican target. Next in line is our public education system, poorly educated workers will be thankful for any pitiful, deadens job. We are on target to be a third world country.
Apparently, wealthy people never read the story about killing the Golden Goose.
10
Any wonder the middle class in this country is but a shadow of its former self? That's the result of 40 years of relentless attacks by Corporate America and its Republican handmaidens. The economy's rigged, plain and simple. Come November, vote for fairness and decency. At this point, that is the only recourse left to ordinary people.
9
I understand football players kneeling during the anthem but no one hears their message.
Seeing the flag is beginning to instill fear in me. The average person is no longer wrapped in red, white and blue.
Difficult to be patriotic when the odds are purposely stacked against you as in this Supreme Court decision. The other, Citizens United, destroyed the political landscape.
7
A majority of members of SCOTUS should be impeached for their self-dealing and corruption, not to mention their failure to properly interpret the laws of the land, as well as the Constitution.
5
I would be more sympathetic to the editors' argument if I thought workers would really benefit from class action lawsuits. Unfortunately, in most class action lawsuits the only beneficiaries are the attorneys.
1
Class actions by employees are one of the few checks on Corporate power on their "at will" employees. They not only work to compensate the workers harmed but cause illegal and indefensible behavior by employers to be curtailed through judgements and consent decrees. If your perspective on the law is limited to the $3.74 postcard settlement for your consumer purchase read about the Steve Jobs conspiracy to keep employees from leaving or getting fair wages.
2
There is a difference between what may be right and what the law says. The Supreme Court went with the law; that is their obligation.
Laws can be changed. If you do not like what the law says, vote for someone who sees things your way.
Talk about cherry picking facts ... As is clear in the article this case involved the interaction between two laws, the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 and the National Labor Relations Act. As such it is THE LAW itself which is in question. Siding with the newer law, passed a decade later, would have recognized the workers' rights to engage in such democratic activity as organizing a union in order to put an end to blatantly anti-democratic practices like arbitration. The majority in this case was made up of well educated and well spoken corporate stooges which is in keeping with this country's turn toward becoming an authoritarian state. Another reason to remove the US from any list of "democratic nations."
6
No surprises here. The outdated so-called Supreme Court is overwhelmingly Republican-based, meaning workers will never stand a chance where it's concerned.
6
Life has winners and losers. Employers are set up to be winners, and employees as losers, although the former can lose (usually to each other) and the latter can win (if their skills are scarce). This is natural, and conservatives do not believe in disturbing the natural order.
Liberals believe that the natural order can be at the very least tweaked to improve it. They want justices to use their common sense to tweak it when the law allows (Brown vs. Board of Education), rather than finding excuses to preserve it (Plessey vs. Ferguson).
5
Conditions for current day workers will need to get bad enough so they come to understand they only have power by banding together. It is called a union. It is obvious today’s workers are uninformed and have no idea what drove the early labor movement. It does appear it has started to dawn on red state teachers as they appear to have had enough and realize group action is the only way to get attention. Sadly, it is likely many of those teachers voted Republican.
9
This could be because conservatives live in a world that doesn't really exist. Or they live in a world where they assume that every worker/consumer is out to get the business in trouble. The results are the same no matter what world they are living in: no place for employees or consumers or patients to turn where they can get justice or a fair hearing for what was done wrong and may have injured them.
Employers are free to fire workers for any reason at all. Most employees have no protections against unjust treatment at work or, if the employer extends itself into the employee's life, outside of work. Businesses can and do get away with murder. The fines are so small they write them off as tax deductions.
The arbitration clauses should be illegal. Why? Because we do not have a real choice to say no to them when we take a job. Because buying a product does not constitute acceptance (or should not) of the business's policies when the business is less than candid about the product. And last, the public has the right to know if a product or an employer is committing fraud, hurting employees or consumers on purpose, or, as in the case of some auto companies, knowingly leaving a defective switch, or something similar, in cars because it's cheaper.
Arbitration clauses are robbing us of our rights to free speech and to justice.
15
First of all, I question the assertion that Merrick Garland could be sitting in Neil Gorsuch's seat. While I agree that the Senate failed in their obligation to bring his nomination to the floor, I think that if they had, it would have failed.
As to the main point of the editorial, I have applied for and been offered many jobs over my career. Some of them I accepted as offered, some of them I took after getting unacceptable provisions changed, and some I turned down because the employer held to terms I could not accept.
Once I accepted a job, however, both I and my employer were bound by the contracts we both signed. I would no more sue them to change the terms than would I accept their attempts to change terms.
2
Employees often have to sign an agreement that makes it impossible or prohibitively expensive for them to resist employer attempts to change terms. So employees either accept their terms or have to find another job, burdened by no letter of recommendation or one that said they were troublemakers, or a blacklist.
The employer is bound by the contract only to the extent that the employee can get it enforced.
6
You no doubt are a low level hourly worker who is in a position to negotiate contract terms with an employer with ten people behind you willing to accept employment on whatever terms are offered. Get real.
2
@DCN - I was one when I started, didn't like it, so I took steps to change it. I went on to school and became a programmer, then a systems analyst, and found myself in a position where I could negotiate for favorable terms. I am no genius, just someone who worked his way up the ladder.
Remember the shirtwaist factory fire case in NYC in the early 1900s, when hundreds of workers had to jump out of windows to try to save their lives. So many died. The robber barons, like the present oligarch corporations, avoided paying for these poor workers' funerals.
At the time of the fire there were just two escapes and one was locked by the employers so the workers would not steal from them. When the matter went to court, the robber barons defended on the grounds that there were no laws in place to protect the workers.
Today, our oligarch corporations have created the same firewall against the workers by eliminating laws for workers' protections in wages and working conditions.
We should have given more consideration to the disparity between workers' wages and CEO's compensation which tells the real story. Workers shot themselves in the foot by accepting right-to-work laws. The oligarch corporations have finished the battle against workers with the Gorsich Supreme Court decision.
American workers have got a long way back to justice. They better vote these Republicans out of office this year.
16
Comments made by Justices Gorsuch and Ginsberg in the case provide a good roadmap into the thinking of the right and left sides of the Court. The conservatives typically look at a case in the context of existing federal statutes. The liberals typically ask what social outcomes they wish to realize, and they make law accordingly.
For those who believe that the conservatives always favor "big business", remember the 2005 case in which the Court kicked Susette Kelo out of her home in New London, CT to help Pfizer Corporation, who planned to build a facility there. The four liberals were joined by Justice Kennedy. As it turned out, Pfizer walked away, but the larger impact was that government became a broker, not a protector, of private property, and eminent domain abuse got a big boost.
6
It is not clear to me how an earlier law can supersede a later law. There is a blinkered argument here that somehow a class action lawsuit is not a "concerted activity" of workers. It is plain nonsense.
And who regularly accuses whom of "legislating from the bench"?
6
This outcome was desired and praised by Judith Faulkner, the CEO of Epic Systems here, one of the corporations defending the extortion of its employees' rights.
And this in a progressive county in a blue area of Wisconsin. The company is very successful and now we can see, in part, why.
6
I hope "the bernie and jill people" are satisfied.
they sat on their hands and let Hilary Clinton
lose the election to a man so unqualified as
to be beyond all known words. yes,you won,
you committed die hard progressives.
and now,depending on what happens in November, we will have the most reactionary and retrograde Supreme Court for decades to come. Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein supporters should throw a party celebrating this horrid decision.they deserve each other.
9
Maybe the DNC should have put up a better candidate. The fact is most Bernie supporter held their noses and voted for Hillary. But keep alienating progressives and keep losing.
3
Roberts and Alito were placed on the Supreme Court because in more than 300 cases they heard as appellate judges not once did either side with a plaintiff. They weren’t nominated for opposition to Roe v Wade as media insisted but for their opposition to workers rights, unions and the right to strike, all that created an American middle class and all that Republicans have spent a half century destroying. Gorsuch is just another lackey in their mold.
17
The Editorial Board bemoans the fact that Merrick Garland is not on the Supreme Court--that decisions in cases would end up differently had he been confirmed. See? Conservative knew all along. Garland is a liberal jurist--that's why Obama nominated him. The claim that he was more centrist, was always a prevarication.
Whew! Dodged a bullet there! Thank you Mitch McConnell!
3
Jesse is at it again: better a language-twisting, anti-worker, right-wing extremist (on his record, Jesse) than a moderately liberal, responsible jurist. Sure, Jesse.
16
So, you apparently acknowledge and are happy that McConnell played politics with the nomination, and that the decision resulted in the adverse consequences to the work force - part of Trump’s base that he panders to (and which is all he does on their behalf). This is what good government looks like to you.
16
@ Thomas Zaslovsky:
There are many definitions of "liberal", but when it involves the judiciary, (moderate or not), it usually means a judge who pays mild lip service to the Constitution--but considers it an inconvenience--and wishes it wasn't there.
When it comes right down to it, liberal justices twist the meaning of the document--in order to make it follow their social justice agendas. And when there is no way to square the Constitution with their thinking--they just make up rulings out of whole cloth. The 9th Circuit is famous for this--and it has made them the most routinely overturned judicial body in our system.
Ideally, no judges should carry a political philosophy around when interpreting the law. It is the job of a judge to interpret the law, best they can, as written, considering the intentions of the legislature--not to make it up as they go along.
There are 4 justices on the Supreme Court currently--who make it up as they go along: Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer. We don't need any more. They believe the Constitution is a "living document". What hogwash. If it's malleable, why have it as all? "Exactly"--say all liberal judges--like Merrick Garland--"Why have it at all?"
And when justices make it up as they go along...what's the harm, you say? It's the law is never truly settled. Citizens don't respect it--and try anything they can think of to overturn it. Example? Look at Roe v. Wade. How many challenges now?
The Court is not, as you put it, "becoming more conservative". A "conservative majority" respects established law. The so-called "conservative majority" is neither "conservative" nor even reactionary, it is radical. Please try to use vocabulary with denotative meanings. The decision to which you refer is all about property rights; nothing could be simpler.
8
Just do less work. Play the game.
3
"Business friendly" should be substituted by "business kowtowing".
8
What can you say about the American mindset? My parents & grandparents (as well as my wife's) were labor organizing workers in the construction and garment industries. They had to fight cops, the National Guard & company hired thugs to win decent pay, time off, health insurance, & workplace safety. All so the workers of America could send their children to high school & college instead of work places like factories & coal mines when still children. So the kids grow up, become professionals, managers etc. & registered Republicans & dismantle every thing their ancestors got their heads busted open to win for them. Go figure! Just like my generation got killed in Vietnam, resisted the draft, protested the war, created a battering ram against the Military Industrial, Banking, Corporate Complex, so our children & grandchildren could wave flags, invade other countries, assassinate elected leaders & of course, stand for the national anthem or be blacklisted, ostracized & smeared by a President who is a multi billionaire who most likely has not paid a dime in income tax in at least 18 years. Again-go figure!
23
Not just professionals and managers responsible for dismantling. The destructive criminal administration we have now is because workers, many of them union, are reliable Republican voters. The consistently vote against their own best interests because Republicans have courted them with phony “cultural” issues. After tRump gives one of his rally speeches and then jets off to one of his private clubs does his base seriously believe he cares one iota what happens to them.
3
Are you happy now, workers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, who voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton didn’t visit their state during her campaign and because you didn’t bother to read her policy platform? Elections have consequences...
60
Hillary visited Pennsylvania over 20 times
1
Judge Gorsuch is correct; if you want to change the law....CHANGE THE LAW. Have Congress write a law banning arbitration clauses. (I agree, BTW.) Don't ask the courts to engineer society into your liking. You notice most of these decisions come down to 5-4, conservative vs. liberals? Huh. When it was 5-4 for Obergefell and Windsor, you thought that was just fine. Well....this is payback. And one more Justice, and we will take away Roe vs. Wade, too! You ain't seen nothing yet. The left hand giveth and the right hand taketh away. Remember all this while enjoying your gay marriages.
3
You're angry! How's women's right to abortion any of your business and what's your beef with gay marriage?
Both of them are none of your business. You can do as you please, have an abortion or don't. Nobody is forcing you to do one or the other. Also, explain to me how gay marriage affects you? It doesn't!
3
The Supreme Court has gone rogue. Gorsuch is sand in the eye of the judiciary branch and every decision that comes out of its highest court ought to be handed down with an asterisk. As for McConnell, who so gleefully engineered this mess - to paraphrase what Madeline Albright said of women who refused to support Hillary - his special place down under (not Australia) awaits.
9
Neil Gorsuch sits on the Supreme Court because of a constitutional coup d'état perpetrated against an elected president, President Obama and his nomination for the Supreme Court Merrick Garland by Mitch McConnell. Gorsuch, sitting on the court with his smirk on his face, should forever have an asterisk by his name on his decisions. His position on the court is illegitimate. Of course he never ponders that he owes his position to a ruse that the founders could never have anticipated in their original intent about the process of nominating justices to the Supreme Court. So much for original intent. Gorsuch is a tool of the Federalist Society and a product of Citizens United and the Koch Brothers and the 1 percent that now owns Congress and the Supreme Court.
13
This article illustrates how corrupt the so-called Supreme Court has become where it is entirely predictable how a case will be decided based upon which president appointed which justice. They don't need legal qualifications or experience. Their decisions are a foregone conclusion.
3
Another day in the life of a burgeoning plutocracy. Nixon put the republican party on the path of no holds barred nastiness, anything to win, and Reagan began the sale of the republic to the elite.
10
Somewhere far into the future, the "populists" who shunned liberalism and the Democratic Party and voted in the Republicans in order to slash away at government and make the courts into their own image, will understand just how horribly they have been had.
Oh, they may get Rowe v Wade overturned and have abortions relegated to back alleys again, they may get affirmative action outlawed and even prayer back in the schools (if there are any public schools left); but will that comfort them when they have lost all of their bargaining power as workers and find themselves at the mercy of the unchecked power of corporate greed?
The biggest American political con of the last 40 years, even bigger than the bogus justification for the Iraq war, is the scam perpetrated by the right wing movement that demonized liberalism, ushered in Reagan, and dominated our politics ever since. Its big con? That the conservative party of big business, of supply side economics, of government deregulation, of dismantling unions - the Republican Party, including Donald Trump - was the party that was looking out for the working class.
Although, with Trump and the Republicans busily packing the courts, with the coonsequences already being felt in their decisions, maybe that day of realization for working class Republican voters isn't that far off after all.
13
The conservative justices on the SCOTUS bear much of the blame for the devolution of our democracy. If Dems ever regain control of the executive and congressional branches of our govt I’m going to lobby for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas and the addition of two more SCOTUS justices to remedy the harm caused by the diversion of the arc of the moral universe away from justice engineered by Mitch McConnell and other Republicans.
4
There are surely plenty of Trump/GOP voters adversely affected by this decision. I wonder if they are aware of it in the first place. For those who are, will they have a “hmmm” moment? Will that “Be careful what you wish for...” adage occur to them?
4
At some distant future date the light may dawn but they will likely find a way to blame Democrats. Perhaps if they pray real hard God will change things.
1
Once republicans are voted out, this theft of "The People's" supreme court seat absolutely needs to be revisited.
The outrage of the Gorsuch installation needs to be removed. The rightful Justice, Garland, allowed the hearing that McConnell robbed him of. Then the ugly machinations of republican right wing bullying and the robbing of American workers can be stopped, reparations paid, and workers rights restored along with the restoration of our Government "Of The People, By The People, For The People".
3
All the high dudgeon from the left is a bit misdirected. The problem is NOT that Gorsuch was part on the court- he is supremely qualified , even if you dont like like his politics, philosophy etc- the problem in Garland never got a hearing and is also supremely qualified. Donald Trump is not the problem in this case...Mitch McConnell is. Its time Dems just focused on winning elections and not whining. Unfortunately that will compel them to not cluster as much and treat fly over country with a little more tolerance and respect.
2
For decades now, conservatives have insisted that liberal judges are activists, writing laws from the bench. As the column points out, this decision comes after a long series of cases in which the conservatives extended a specious interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act, overturning decades of interpretation of that law as it was written to apply to competing businesses, not to workers and consumers.
Once again, we are shown by their own words and actions that conservative jurists have always been much more activist than liberal jurists, gleefully writing laws from the bench. If conservative judicial hypocrisy weren't such an old story, we might be surprised at the brashness of this decision.
All I can say for Mr. Justice Gorsuch is that he certainly learned well at his mother's knee to twist reality to his mentors' desired ends. Were it not for lifetime appointment, we might be able to wish that his career in public service would end with the same ingnominy with which hers ended. Even if it were to so end, the mentors would likely continue in their victories.
As for Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy (in his business jurisprudence), well, what else is new? They continue to advance the absurdity that started long before Citizens United that businesses are citizens. We are now told businesses must be treated as more equal than the rest of us, much like Orwell's pigs on the farm. No surprise. Pigs eat anything and everything, including those they have mentored.
6
This is why McConnell did his donors’ bidding and refused to do what the Constitution required him to do, to let Merrick Garland have hearings and be voted on. Bought and paid for, both McC and Gorsuch.. This is our future unless honest people vote Democrat this fall.
5
It’s apparent that the Republicans and cold hearted Conservative
Supreme Court Justices will continue to rule in favor of the rich and powerful with no thought for the abused workers in America.
As a former employee of such an abusive company, I can attest
to the fact that life gets grim when employers are given free reign
to take advantage in financial and punitive ways. This evil empire that is the Trump regime and all the Conservatives will
have to answer for their shockingly immoral destruction of all
that makes America good. For those of us still possessing a soul
there is little left but a demoralizing waiting game until people of
conscience can take the reigns and right the ship. God help us until then, we can only hope democracy is strong enough to withstand this immoral dismantling of our freedoms and rights.
3
See the related articles on CEO to employee pay ratio. We are dismantling the country.
6
These so called "conservative justices" are not conservative at all when it comes to protecting the most fundamental rights of all Americans, that of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Their actions are indifferent to protecting the rights of the majority against the power of a well heeled minority. Their credo seems to be, "Hey America, you get the democracy you deserve." Apparently there are no windows within their unsullied ivory tower ideology.
3
Big business always wins! Sadly!
1
McConnell’s cynical flouting of a couple hundred years of Senate tradition has paid big dividends. It was a gamble which depended on a Republican successor to Obama.
The prospect of Trumpo having the ability to appoint a series of unprincipled right wing mandarins to SCOTUS was the signal reason to hold one’s nose and vote for HRC.
Many progressives and other usually enthusiastic Democratic voters took a “ Purity of the Turf” pass or simply threw their votes away on folks like the Green Party’s Jill Stein.
Now we can look forward to another “Lochner era” on the Court. That infamous 1905 decision signaled that the interests of big business had suzerainty vis a vis state law regulations, over all aspects of worker rights.
It only took the Court until 1937 to explicitly overrule Lochner by adopting the words of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent in Lochner, his most famous.
Gorsuch is 50, a youngster by usual Court standards. Expect similar appointments by Trumpo if anyone else retires during Trumpo’s reign.
Welcome to the new Lochner era folks. Purity of the Turf can be very expensive.
4
"...endearing him to businesses and to Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader AND FRIEND TO THE RICH AND POWERFUL..."
After the 2008 "financial crisis," which is a euphemism for a massive wealth transfer from the public masses to the powerful few, Barack Obama told a group of top bankers: "I'm the only thing between you and the pitchforks, and I'm here to help you." He then proceeded to prosecute absolutely no one involved in the fraud. He likewise did absolutely nothing to help reshape the financial sector. He now gets paid six-figures to talk at Wall Street conferences ($400,000 alone for a Cantor Fitzgerald speech last year).
His failure to forcefully respond to this financial swindle made him appear to be a friend to the rich and powerful over and above the masses.
This, coupled with his administration's having dropped more bombs than the Bush administration, led a war-weary and financially-strapped public to look to alternatives such as Bernie Sanders....and Donald Trump.
Once the Clinton camp, themselves in bed with rich and powerful interests and completely out of touch with everyday people - much more out of touch, in fact, than Mitch McConnell and most Republicans - once this Clinton machine sabotaged the Sanders campaign and then failed to adopt any of his platform - the stage was set for Trump.
All that being said, this is an abominable decision by SCOTUS. But please stop pretending that mainstream Democrats aren't friends to the rich and powerful.
3
I don't expect much from our judiciary or the rest of our leaders any more. The fact that their (not our) laws allow for our indentured slavery on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies says it all.
When this administration is gone the time will come to "pack the court".
2
The courts of unequal justice are the froth on the beer of state eat state governance.
1
The issue is not so much arbitration versus going to the courts, its class action. Many (most) individuals are well served using arbitration -far faster and cheaper for the plaintiffs, and you dont run the risk of a largely unemployed, elderly and undereducated group of jurors from the pool, exemptions aNd void dire. And lets be honest, there is a large degree of abuse in class action suits/shakedown. Finding that balance is the problem. NB Gorsuch made it quite clear if congress of the states wish to allow workers to organize despite these clauses they can. ...some people, including some who have commented , wont be happy until the workers control the means of Production. You dont have to vote republican to recognize that does not end well and is not the solution.
We now have the worst supreme court since the early 20th century. I long for the days of the Warren Court when decisions actually made sense and benefited people.
19
"Whenever the Legislature tries to regulate the differences between masters and workmen, it's counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in the favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable, but it is often otherwise when in favour of the master."
Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations"
4
And this decision is only the beginning. Until we elect a Democrat President, the next Supreme Court appointments will reinforce the far right lean of the Court and the loss of many individual rights--workers' rights, civil rights, women's rights, voting rights.....I could go on. Coincidentally, I just read the Times graphic on the highest paid CEOs and the median pay of the workers in their companies. A number of these CEOs lead companies whose median worker pay is around $6,000 per annum. What this tells me is that these companies employ primarily part-time workers so the company does not have to pay benefits. These workers are paid minimum wage, while the CEO makes $20,000,000 or more. This is exploitation, and the Supreme Court has just reinforced that executive privilege.
14
McConnell refused to consider Garland's nomination because he wanted Americans to vote in 2016, and we did. The majority of Americans rejected Trump, and only the arcane Electoral College elevated him to the presidency. Gorsuch and every other judicial nominee under Trump's presidency until 2018 are illegitimate and should be impeached if Democrats take control of the House and Senate.
Conservatives say people can quit or refuse hire over the arbitration racket that pervades our society, but that's simply another word for turning tail and running. People of good will need to run to the ballot box in November and rid our nation of demigods who want the wealthy to lord over the vast majority of us.
21
Keith is mistaken. McConnell *said* he wanted Americans to vote in 2016. That was a transparent excuse.
4
Not quite, and here's a quote from the LA Times.
"I can't imagine that a Republican-majority Senate, even if it were soon to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge who would move the court dramatically to the left," McConnell said on "Fox News Sunday." "That's not going to happen."
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-mcconnell-supreme-court-201...
"The majority of Americans rejected Trump, and only the arcane Electoral College elevated him to the presidency."
Have you noticed that the Democrats have not pressed to have the electoral method of presidential elections changed? They didn't do it after the 2000 presidential election, either. Why do think that is?
Besides, the blame rightly belongs to both Democrats and Republicans at the state level. In 48 of 50 states, these two parties have agreed to put into law a "winner take all" system. Whoever gets the most votes, even if not a majority, gets every single electoral vote. That's not what was intended at the Constitutional Convention, but that's what we ended up with.
If you want to fix this, call your state legislative representatives. They will politely listen to you then laugh after they hang up the phone.
1
We're now back to pre FDR days when the Supreme Court ignored the rights of workers.
17
You mean the pre-FDR days when the three branches respected the free market, when Lochner wasn’t the subject of liberal ridicule? Those days?
The Constitution guarantees to every American due process and equal protection under the law. This includes laws regarding conditions of employment such as wage rates and hours worked, as well as contract law requiring that employers actually pay agreed wages to the worker. These are matters of public law which are meant to be enforced through the public legal and regulatory system.
But nay, say, employers, we're going to require anybody who works for us to give up their Constitutional right to the equal protection of those laws, and their right to petition the government for redress of any grievances that they might have.
By way of analogy: suppose that one person induces another person over whom they hold considerable power (spouse, romantic partner, child, or other dependent) to sign a contract agreeing that all complaints about abuse be taken to an arbitrator chosen by the accused, and that the complaining party be barred from talking to the police, pressing charges under public law, or joining up with other victims.
Such an absurd contract would rightly be considered unenforceable for several reasons: unconscionability, undue influence, maybe duress. And rightly so, because it's basically one party using their influence over another party to exempt themselves from following the law of the land in their treatment of that second, weaker party.
And yet for some reason our Supreme Court thinks that such contracts should be enforced when mandated by employers.
16
Same situation with Homeowners associations. People sign away their rights.
1
As much as I can't stand the conservative members of the court they are right on one account: "If congress wants to change the law,...,it is free to do so". This is correct. Who is on the supreme court would matter much less if congress would do their job. Don't like a ruling - pass a law to fix it. It's the inaction and incompetence of congress that avoids doing anything worthwhile and just hopes they can stack the court sufficiently to do their bidding. The focus on the makeup of the supreme court detracts from the real issue at hand.
10
An interesting fact is that the three cases reflected a split at the Appeals Court level,with the Ninth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit ruling one way and the Fifth Circuit ruling the other way. As is usual, the Ninth Circuit decision was overturned and the Fifth Circuit decision was affirmed.
The Fifth Circuit is the Appeals Court least likely to be overturned and the Ninth Circuit is the Appeals Court most likely to be overturned.
2
That's because the 5th is one of the most harshest against individual rights, and pro-Corporate/Oligarch.
4
Compare and contrast this decision with the so-called "right to work" cases, where conservatives argued that workers couldn't be forced to even contribute to the cost of the unions' gaining benefits for them, much less join the union, in union shops (legal agreements negotiated by labor and employers). Now, suddenly, coerced, one-sided "agreements" become genuine "negotiated" agreements that are enforceable by law. These justices and employer lawyers sure now how to argue with both sides of their mouths.
14
The modern American legal relationship between employers and employees was and remains founded on the legal principles from a day gone by - that of master-servant. The law of that day always favored the master over the servant - regarding the servant as second class in every way.
16
The NLRA has at least two more protections that even this court would have trouble striking down. The right to strike for better working conditions forms the basic reason for that law, it was passed in response to the labor wars in the 1930's. The teachers today are showing us the effectiveness of mass strikes and in today's full employment arena, employers may find it harder to replace strikers. The other protection is the right to form unions, which bargain for wages and benefits and represent employees in arbitrations. The Republicans have been doing their best to destroy unions, but decisions like this, and wage suppression across the board, may trigger a new wave of organizing. Collective action is the response to unfair working conditions. Other remedies include state laws that govern wages and working conditions. The outrageous result here is that the class actions which may be most affected are those based on unlawful discrimination. This decision is just another thinly disguised exercise of racism and misogyny, aimed at destroying collective action on these types of cases. It demands action from the legislature. Vote Democratic, please.
12
If you step back and look at the issue clearly, you’ll see that unions are but a means of conspiracy and strikes are a sophisticated method of extortion.
1
This is ,I guess, what we mean by Trump's "populism". I might note that some commentators have wondered if this could be used in relation to claims of discrimination. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 there have been many cases brought where the claim was that racial or gender discrimination could only be shown by a pattern or practice of results in hiring , promotion and termination. Rarely have there been cases since the passage of the act where employees were told that they were not going to get a promotion because they were the wrong race or gender, few discriminators would be so self-destructive. So if this case applies to those suits as well ( as I am sure the conservative five would decide) then each person would have to bring an individual arbitration procedure. Not only would this entail the expense that is described herein, but if the arbitration judge so decided they could rule that findings in other arbitrations were not admissible. Thus, pattern and practice discrimination would be shielded from legal remedy. And thereby we can see that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was passed in response to the Birmingham bombings, the bravery of Dr. King and the fortitude of LBJ would in effect be repealed.
8
Labor has only itself to blame, as has usually been the case. Hopefully this decision, and, I predict, an even worse holding the Court will issue shortly, will open labor voters eyes. How many workers adversely impacted by these rulings voted for Trump thereby insuring anti-labor SCOTUS rulings? How many air traffic controllers voted for Reagan only to forever lose their jobs?
14
PATCO engaged in an illegal strike, was confrontational in its negotiations (which it didn’t have a legal right to), caused great financial damage to the economy-in particular business travelers, were insubordinate to our President and represented among the wurst excesses of unions. Every one of them should have received prison time that they’d still be serving.
Good luck trying to communicating any of this to the brainwashed Republican and Trump voters. In the words of one of Trump's screaming fanatics: " We don't care!"
2
Can we start calling the Arbitration System what it is: Privatization? It's privatization of the judicial system, pure and simple.
Whatever one says about slowness and incompetence in various corners of government, I would think people could agree on the realization that government is at least designed to be accountable to us at the ballot box.
The privatized Arbitration System is not accountable to all of us. Most of the money that fuels this system comes from the companies that are pushing for its use. People should be deeply uncomfortable with the shift to be bound to this system instead of one that is more directly tied to the popular will.
This may be one of the Supreme Court's more consequential decisions in recent years, and it has barely been discussed. Future discussions should call it what it is: Privatization.
29
Clearly arbitration is inherently in the interest of big business and weakens labor; that businesses would fight all the way to the Supreme Court to maintain arbitration is ample evidence of this.
13
I won't use the F word from the 1930s but the M word from 1600s:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mercantilism
Mercantilism. economics. Mercantilism, economic theory and practice common in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nation's economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It was the economic counterpart of political absolutism.
Instead of state power substitute corporate power and domination to understand our financial and governmental system. The corporate mentality has become all powerful. Profits over workers no matter the cost and harm done to society. Taxes for healthcare, education, infrastructure are deemed harmful to the corporation. If the infrastructure is poor well pick up your means of production and go to an area where they are good. Unions ? Again just move. Regulations? Threaten to move and have the voters throw out the anti-business politicians. Supreme Court? Have judges legislate from the bench.
Far fetched? Instead of trade replace it with unregulated corporate profits and you eliminate workers from the equation of a democratic society sharing in the wealth they helped create. The Supreme Court along with a willing Congress and the White House is aiding and abetting Corporate absolutism. The latest decision is just one more example.
10
Arbitrations are not inherently bad. They might be better for the underdog in any dispute (or at least the party with fewer financial resources).
Congress just needs to fix the law to permit for class action-like arbitrations.
3
Sadly, there is less chance of this Congress fixing anything than there is of this Supreme doing the right thing.
3
There is a clear pattern. his ruling along with the degrading of the consumer's protection act and Hobby Lobby and Citizens' United ruling(probably more such actions I am unaware of) is the Republicans' focused attack on the citizen versus business. Take all this and bundle in States actively working to suppress voter turnout and you are left with a party that works not for the people but for the dollar.
Ask yourself, once the surface veneer of rhetoric about how people will be helped by less gov't and union type organizing because businesses can't be efficient if they are not allowed to do what is best for their businesses is removed, is any of the political decisions made by the 3 branches of our democracy intended to improve the lives and protect the people or just a byproduct of Republican politics.
The Gorsich decision was based on a long line of erosive judicial decisions of the original law - all based on this idea that businesses need help to be prosperous and looking out for the rights of the people will hurt the bottom-line. Yet, the greatest gains were made during strong worker rights and regulation periods.
Ginsberg stated the obvious - this almost 100 year law has over the years been distorted and no longer is doing what it was intended to do. Is that the law following the the statute or the law following the politics.
23
How is it in this age of populist leaders we have so much anti-union, anti-consumer, and anti-individual worker regulation and governance?
Someone is being sold a very big bill of goods while getting nothing but hardship in return. Revolution is waiting in the wings.
39
Yes, it is waiting.
But our centrist brethren are still doing ok. Enough to not rock the boat and upset their goody basket. As long as they are atop the rungs, those below can crab and scuffle for the scrapes. When the ordure reaches the middle class enough to make them uncomfortable...then and only then, will our centrist brethren join the rabble below, waiting in the wings.
( I understand pitchforks and tumbrel carts will be a good investment in a couple of years. )
9
Populism is generally a fake sales pitch to get people on board. Sorta like being shanghaied, bamboozled, flim flammed or just plain lied to.
3
We’ve been here before. Following the last Golden Age, the ascendancy of the Robber Barrons and the ensuing Great Depression, workers organized, struck and eventually made progress toward workers’ rights. For inspiration, may I suggest watching On the Waterfront for insights into how to confront mobbed up oligarchs.
14
Please name one other group that can be described by pejoratives like Robber Barron. Just one. There aren’t any.
The reference to Robber Barons was intended to denote a period in American history when workers were disorganized and powerless, much as they are today. But if you insist on being literal, I will argue that there are plenty of examples of individuals and corporations that have become obscenely wealthy by dishonest and unscrupulous means (the definition of a Robber Barron, as I am sure you know). I would count among them: pharmaceutical companies that misrepresent the safety and effectiveness of their drugs; energy companies that pay fringe scientists to refute climate change; tobacco companies that deny well established medical evidence of the harmfulness of their product; and any other company or industry that buys political favors to gain market share or avoid taxes. You may quibble with the phrase, but a society in which the richest 1% control 38% of all privately held wealth, is, IMHO, plagued by Robber Barons.
The 1%, plutocracy, elites, welfare queens.
Robber Barron is not pejorative, just accurate.
We have sold out to the rich; with that accelerating since Reagan's trickle down tax cuts. Trump and the Republicans just continued the slide towards plutocracy. So, the Supreme Court's just another player.
We deny economics; we talk race and guns and immigration and such, but never economics. Tax the billionaires more? I don't hear that. Start a wealth tax to redistribute the graft of the top-tier? I don't hear it. Nah, we're speaking at the margins, we stay away from the real issue. We're afraid and compliant.
Billionaire owns Fox News and billionaire owns Washington Post and billionaires make the world dance to their tune. Where's the outrage, or better yet, where's the ideas of how to breathe life into democracy? Nowhere.
We're so lost we don't even know where we've been. We're such bad citizens we think we're not supposed to talk about inequality (I guess we really don't believe in democracy).
The Democrats and Obama didn't fight for Garland; our bad. Weak. Too weak. So, the autocrat takes over. Surprised?
What's honor and truth worth? Clapper's the man. He's talking straight, no chaser. Good for him.
Where are we?
17
Did you forget Clapper lied to Congress?
us army 1969-1971/california jd
On a related note, isn’t this more evidence that the U.S. has come full circle from a century ago? Minimal organized labor, obscenely wealthy robber barrons organizing ever growing monopolies with full support of the government and very little pushback. What will it take to bring back lost gains and worker rights?
24
Things are somewhat headed to their natural order, despite the brief (relative to human history) aberration that was the post-war era. A large middle class is not a normal feature of a capitalist economy.
It's so appropriate as a reflection on his long career that trashing the constitution to prove himself a most loyal political hack is McConnell's proudest moment.
20
Politically influenced courts are a horrible thing. If the Third Power in the state can't steer clear of it you can say openly: there's no justice.
Why this happens, and even in "advanced nations", is simply a scandal.
11
One one side, corporations with $million staff of lawyers. On the other side, one worker. And the worker is supposed to negotiate for the best deal for himself, and the company with its team of lawyers and professional negotiators wants to pay as little as possible.
yeah....
20
Merrick Garland could have been on the Supreme Court if Hillary had won. Who was it that said elections have consequences?
6
Not having Garland on the bench cost America, but Hillary could not win, "white women," (Trump got 53%). Maybe next time the Democrats need to put forth someone that can fight back and counterpunch.
Mitch McConnell, is mean and unfair? Let's all shake our heads in disbelief. Where is the fighter in equal measure on the progressive side? Hillary, got my vote precisely for the Supreme Court, but oh, the disappointment of her reaching across the table for all those chips, the finance speeches, for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Hillary, the corporatist, who served on the board of Walmart, the U.S. biggest antiunion employer. Please.
7
On the board of Walmart...what did HIllary do for Walmart workers? "NOTHING"!! that's what! she did not argue for higher wages, better hours, health insurance. She DID NOTHING but collect a six figure salary! All the gains for Walmart workers, who now earn $11 an hour, came after the Trump election.
1
This warped attitude and belief in lies got Trump selected. Only one candidate was even remotely qualified, equipped, and prepared to be president. If 53% of white women were too ignorant to see that it is on them, not her.
4
The real danger to democracy today is that the left no longer believes in the rule of law and expects the Supreme Court
and the President to make the law rather than Congress. This attitude plays out daily especially in the matter of
"illegal" immigration..
7
The right's belief in the "rule of Law" is playing out currently in the Oval Office. The right insists it holds the moral high ground despite all evidence to the contrary - stolen presidency (GWB), stolen SCOTUS seat, stolen taxes, stolen economy. Yeah, immigration is our biggest problem. Right. Ultra-conservative right. Which is to say, WRONG.
4
If' as you say . the" presidency was stolen and SCOTUS was stolen "and the economy and taxes were "stolen",,, then obviously our democracy is de facto "dead" and the rule of law is also dead. What are we going to replace it with? Appoint Bernie Sanders king?
Can anyone explain to me how a litigant can expect a fair ruling from a court that is clearly partisan by political affiliation? How they don't violate their oath of office by walking so far from a standard of neutrality and fairness? How we can take them seriously when they never say were not divided and you can get a fair hearing here?
And in case you’re wondering what kind a man Gorsuch is…he’s the kind who did not have the decency to reject the nomination until Garland had his committee hearing. The kind who takes advantage of the system-gaming by the republicans instead of condemning it.
A national discrace.
9
Mike- are you an attorney ? I dont know any lawyer who would spurn a. Supreme Court nomination (or any other professional in any other field with the chance to serve in the highest capacity of their arduous training) Please focus your energies and help us nominate someone who is electable next time to run against Trump instead of making statements and feeling good.
This editorial contains two very purposeful distortions. The first is that contracts should be enforced according to the relative bargaining power of the parties, such that a court could disregard the contract's clear terms if one party had considerably more power than the other. Virtually every contract is better for one party than another. That fact does not make the contract an act of "extortion," as this article claims.
Second, this editorial asserts, without any evidence, that courts are inherently more fair to workers than arbitrators. Professional arbitrators are held to an even higher level of neutrality than politically selected judges, and parties to most contracts get a role in selecting the arbitrator to ensure that clearly biased arbitrators are not selected.
This was a relatively simple case about whether a party can enforce a type of contract specifically authorized by federal law. The fact that Justice Grouch could view it in that way, rather than blindly adopting a progressive anti-corporate position is what the editorial board is clearly angry about. Judge Garland, like the Court's sitting liberals, would have felt free to disregard the law when he wished to pursue an anti-corporate progressive agenda. That is why many of us are so glad he is NOT on the Supreme Court. Elections matter.
4
I think a good case can be made - but not by the left or the right-that the nation would have Been well served to have BOTH garland and goresuch on the court. Both are very decent men , supremely talented ,qualified and experienced lawyers and jurists. The target is not that Goresuch is on the court, its that Garland is not- and i would not be in the least bit surprised to learn Justice Goresuch would be the first to agree and vice versa. If SCOTU were composed of the likes of Breyer , Kennedy and Roberts we would be very fortunate indeed.
1
You made me smile. The corporations and large business entities maintain records on arbitrators, as they are the ones who have regular use. Too many pro labor or consumer decisions, and that is the end of using or agreeing to that arbitrator.
So there you go, I would prefer to take my client's chances and my own with a judge paid by the state.
us army 1969-1971/california jd since 1979
3
Tell it to Bernie and his bros who acted like they would lay down their lives to keep Hillary out of the White House. They gave the Republicans the credibility they needed to inch out a win giving the Republicans the presidency; and the Supreme Court for at least the next twenty five years. They helped take out the most capable person and popular democrat in America. Now no democrat has any say in anything. Now we have to depend on Republicans to have enough integrity to get out of this mess. Thank you so much Bernie.
8
Wrong on every point! Bernie is the only one who truly
fought for people, not corporations and institutions.
Hillary said all the right things but her actions showed
a leaning toward elite corporate institutions. Bernie
would have beaten Trump if Hillary and the DNC hadn’t
stacked the deck in her favor. Don’t blame Bernie, the
one honest man left in government.
2
And that's exactly the attitude that means (if anyone actually did that for those reasons, rather than a myriad of others) it was the right choice to make.
Voters do not "owe" the DNC their vote, so if you present a flawed candidate that people don't like, well then you can expect to lose. And cheating doesn't help your cause, either.
You and Hillary clearly got what you both had coming. Time to stop whining and finger-pointing and move on if you really care about progress over identity talking points.
1
SEA your comment is proof that the Bernie people just like the Trump people claim elections were fixed. Bernie was a fraud. Where is his tax returns? He had a lot in common with Donald Trump. Both claim to be outsiders both were against the trade pack both protected gun manufacturers both made promises that they couldn’t keep both never had to explain to their fans how they would accomplish anything both too large crowds of adoring fans both lied about Hillary both hated Democrats both were infiltrated by Russians and other foreigners. Bernie is a grin face 70s trot with absolutely no idea how to do anything. I ask you to tell me one accomplishment he’s ever done but of course I don’t expect an answer. You just prove that the ridiculous crowd is the same as the deplorable crowd,
3
Perhaps we should actually ask our Congressional representatives to actually do something. All the court is saying is the law as stated doesn’t do what the plaintiff states. CHANGE the law! Vote if you want to change. The court does not make laws. Congress does.
6
A prime example of why elections have consequences. Prepare for an all-out war on workers' rights, women's rights, and a pro-corporate mentality by the SCOTUS. We should have taken to the streets when McConnell refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing.
11
No Jackie, you should have insisted the democrats not nominate a deeply flawed candidate last time- hopefully you(we) have learned that painful lesson.
1
The rich and powerful win again and the powerless lose. Sad but not unexpected. The robber barons are back in force. Workers rights will be weakened from now on. If you haven't got the bucks, too bad, you're a loser and the government and the law aren't on your side anymore. They could have said that if a certain amount of people (say 10 or more) have the same complaint, then a class action is possible but then that wouldn't protect their benefactors. Shame on them.
10
Section 7 of the NLRA already takes care of the issue.
The law is the law, and the justices are right in that Congress can change it.
The bigger issue is simple: Has anyone here been involved in litigation? The only people that win are the attorneys.
10
Congress (Repubs) doesn't want to change it!
But just what is the law that "is the law"? Like so many others you've been taken in by Gorsuch and company's ignoring the NLRA's Section 7.
1
"In each of these cases, an employer and employee entered into a contract providing for individualized arbitration proceedings to resolve employment disputes between the parties."
Why would the Supreme Court rule that a contract, clearly written and freely entered into by both sides, should not be both valid and enforceable? And if they had, why would anyone ever again make a contract? The answer is they wouldn't and that would have far-reaching impacts on just about every aspect of our daily lives (and not in a good way).
2
Was it freely entered into by both sides? I think the editorial said no.
3
The 13th amendment outlawed slavery in the U.S., so every job is entered into freely regardless of what the editorial opined (just because they said it doesn't make it so).
You might want to read the editorial.
The NLRB provides for collective action. Why should one law enforcing contracts supersede another law protecting workers' rights?
The "contract" you hold so precious was never signed. The employee accepted a job, and was subsequently informed he'd agreed to arbitration and relinquished the right to class action.
If enough employees are moved to sue their employer under class action, it's a safe bet they've been seriously generally persistently screwed. Why should they each be forced to sue individually, risking being fired, or be forced to quit? They're being cheated, by quitting they're only making room for someone else to be cheated, and giving the cheating company a competitive advantage in wage costs. Taking the company to court is just a way to keep it honest.
Among the unsigned contracts you'd presumably want enforced is the most obvious one: that the company will compensate the worker for time worked. Why exactly would you prefer to see that agreement not upheld? Why should one party be allowed to welch through evasive lawyering?
3
Justice Gorsuch summed it up nicely: “The policy may be debatable but the law is clear.” Personally, I think that the arbitration system and the class-action system are both seriously flawed. But it’s not up to the Court to make new law. That’s the job of our elected representatives.
Both parties have been hijacked by party hacks who demonize the other side and polarize the nation. Until we start voting for better leaders who believe in working together for the common good, we’ll continue to stagnate.
10
Both parties.... but the GOP has had Congress the last 7 years.
2
That's a ridiculous characterization.
First, you ignore the NLRB. The law is in fact not clear. If it were, the vote wouldn't have occurred, or would have been unanimous. It was 5-4.
Second, one set of party hacks passed Dodd-Frank, expanded the law regarding overtime pay, created the CFPB, and passed Obamacare. The other set passed (3 times) tax cuts for the rich, making the code less progressive, reduced the corporate income tax, softened Dodd-Frank, undermines the CFPB, tried to repeal Obamacare, and is actively destroying the EPA.
Party hacks are not polarizing the nation. The nation is in fact not polarized.
A majority favors universal healthcare. A majority favors immigration reform, especially for the dreamers. A majority favors legal abortion. A majority favors higher taxes on the rich. A majority favors clean air and water. A majority favors stronger gun regulation.
But the minority is rich, and has bought one party. That side pretends there are two sides, and muddies every issue at every opportunity. Except when it's very clear, as with Gorsuch and tax cuts.
Don't blame politicians; that's just sophistry. Blame Republicans. Not for being Republican, but for favoring the wrong remedy to every issue, and for failing to recognize issues. Their only real issue is money. For all they care, the rest of us are an unnecessary cost.
4
You and Gorsuch are ignoring the NLRA. Congress did speak. Gorsuch and his colleagues preferred to pretend that the NLRA does not say what it says and claimed that Congress needs to do it over again, knowing full well that in the current political climate it is an almost certain impossibility for any labor-friendly legislation to pass. Of course, no new legislation is needed--just adherence to legislation passed 80 years ago.
Gorsuch and crew are such liars, just like Trump--only they hide it better.
1
Now add to the mandatory arbitration provisions the restrictions that most companies are placing on employees from seeking alternative employment, and we are approaching 19th century labor relations … the company effectively "owns" the worker.
What we need here is a revived labor movement.
38
I disagree with the decision as well, but there is nothing outrageous or far-fetched about it. The majority's reading of those two statutes and whether they conflict is not unreasonable, understanding that it is employer friendly.
When Congress passed the NLRA, it could easily have written it such that it overrides particular provisions of the FAA that may conflict with employee rights. It did not. And it is not the job of the Supreme Court to do so. As Gorsuch stated, Congress can change the law if it wants to.
10
Unfortunately for your theory, the FAA was originally written in 1925 to apply to commercial issues--that is, business to business. It was not interpreted to apply to employment contracts until 2001. The NLRA was written in 1935 and applied specifically to employee-employer disputes. states that: "Nowhere in his opinion does Gorsuch acknowledge that for over 75 years, the NLRB and the courts have uniformly agreed that the NLRA’s statutory language protecting the right of workers to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of … other mutual aid or protection” applies to workers who pursue collective legal actions. In a 1978 case, the Supreme Court observed that “it has been held that the ‘mutual aid or protection’ clause protects employees from retaliation by their employers when they seek to improve working conditions through resort to administrative and judicial forums.” (https://onlabor.org/trumps-justice-sticks-it-to-workers/)
A bit of googling will find a number of discussions about the FAA, its history including its expansion from disputes having to do with maritime trade and commerce to consumer and employee issues. There is also information about the NLRA. states "Section 7 ... provides ... “the right ... to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 157.
1
The Supreme Court is not so Supreme anymore. It is a power for the party in control and so we have no place to turn for a fair hearing. So now we have no functional Congress, Justice system, White House or President. Perhaps we should rethink the process of electing a president with no requirements.
42
About those "requirements" of yours. Abraham Lincoln received only 40% of the popular vote and had such a thin political resume that most of his cabinet felt him unqualified to be president. Should we rethink that election also?
3
You have a strange view of the situation. We have four hard left jurors appointed by Democrats who always vote as a block, indifferent to the law, on controversial issues. They make their decisions based on their desired partisan outcome.
We have three justices appointed by Republicans who generally vote as a block [including Gorsuch, so far]. Their decisions systematically reflect the law as written and frequently suggest that it is up to Congress to change the law. In this case, as in many cases, there is no Constitutional issue in play, merely laws readily altered by Congress.
We have two justices, Kennedy and Roberts, appointed by Republicans, who no one ever knows how they are going to vote until the decision is published.
Democrats, unable to get Congress to pass laws that they like, are frustrated by the fact that they do not have five hard left justices who can substitute the decisions of an elected legislature with their personal opinions and partisan biases.
In order for the court to become biased on the side of the right, two of the existing justices who are either leftists or swing voters would have to be replaced by jurists who are hard right.
Republicans have a long history of appointing jurists who are swing voters rather than ideologues. Souter, O'Connell, Kennedy, Roberts come immediately to mind. Democrats, in contrast, always appoint jurists who vote as partisans.
Had Garland been confirmed, we would have a dysfunctional SCOTUS.
1
"The Supreme Court is not so Supreme anymore. It is a power for the party in control..."
It's been like this for almost as long as the republic has been in existence. Look back to the case of Marbury v. Madison. The Adams' administration and the "midnight appointments" to ensure that Federalists were at least in control of the judiciary before the Jeffersonian Democrats entered office in 1801 and controlled both the executive and legislative branches. Chief Justice John Marshall lasted until 1835...talk about a political legacy.
The editorial board is endorsing legislating from the bench while the Court made clear that that the legislature has the flexibility to change the laws governing the relationship between employer and employee. It is not the role of the court to make up law but to rule on the constitutionality of laws that Congress passes and the President signs
6
Bunk, pure bunk.
It most certainly matters who is appointed, and it is clear that conservatives dearly desire to legislate from the bench. This ruling adds to our epoch of corporate hegemony.
76
Forcing employees to use arbitration, effectively barring them from seeking justice in a court of law, is not only beneficial to big business over “the little guy”, it’s also unconstitutional.
71
Jackson, read the opinion. It is not unconstitutional and the Courts made it clear that the legislature can change it
How many voters even comprehend that their choice of a president has repercussions lasting many decades after their elected chief executive has retired?
Gorsuch is illegitimate; Trump is illegitimate; our entire sham of a democratic republic is illegitimate.
178
But this IS what they voted for - to change the judiciary and make abortion illegal. And it would be nice, too, in their opinion, to change the country to a theocracy to reflect themselves.
11
How true Kevin, how true. We need to work hard to get legitimacy back and restore our democratic republic. I could say November can`t come fast enough but we have a lot of work to do between now and then.
4
A minority of the population voted for Trump and the SCOTUS chose Bush and stopped FL from counting their votes. Neither of these Republican presidents was democratically elected. Republicans always have to cheat to win. Mitch McConnell is a really good cheater and he is proud of it. But that will be his legacy. He broke the Senate and he completed the debasement of SCOTUS but he did a lot for Taiwan and got really good jobs in government for his family.
18
I agree with the sentiment that these clauses are vile and should be illegal. I also completely agree that Gorusch's seat belongs to Garland.
But...
How exactly does the editorial board imagine that this issue is one of constitutionality? It's not the supreme court's job to right every social wrong. Their job is to determine whether or not laws are constitutional. Gorsuch is exactly right: this one belongs to Congress. The fact that large corporations hold undue sway over Congress is not an excuse for the court to rewrite their job descriptions.
In fact, the thing I find most troubling about this case...again, despite being sympathetic to the cause...is that the four liberal justices apparently allowed their consciences to overrule their intellects. Our experiment with democracy is not going to survive if our highest justices let themselves make decisions this way.
19
It's a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court. If Gorsuch is obviously right, why wasn't it obvious to everyone else?
There are two laws in conflict. There's more than one legitimate interpretation. Gorsuch conveniently found for the corporate side, as is his wont. Would you expect him to couch his language in terms of righting wrongs? Of course not. He says, "The law's the law. What's a simple Justice to do?"
Contract law recognizes inequality. A contract is not valid unless both parties agree to it and have something at stake, known as "consideration". Here, the employer informed the employee, after hiring, that by accepting wages he agrees to arbitration and disclaims the right to class action. No consideration, no agreement, no signature. But valid, because corporation.
13
James,
Can you quote me something from the constitution that you think is violated by these sorts of contracts? Nothing you wrote mentions the constitution.
The problem is that it's never a fair contract. The employee does not have the luxury of not taking the offer because he/she has bills to pay and mouths to feed. It goes to show that employers would rather spend money on fighting their employees in court than use that same money to raise the wages of those who make them profits. Let's not forget who makes the profits for the employer: It's not the CEO and it's not the higher-ups.
The Supreme Court ruling is another example of whose government this is, of who it actually represents.
76
so as a small business owner, I offer good wages, health care, and treat my employees with respect and flexibility. I do not force schedules or people to do what they don't want. If I was an employee I would want to be treated this way. I want a place for my daughters. what I don't understand, is why can't I offer a place to work that if you don't like you can leave and go somewhere else. I am truly at the mercy of my staff showing up for work or even showing up for an interview. So I need (and want) to create a good working environment and I follow all the rules. but... I don't feel that anyone advocates for me.. I feel that every time I feel that I am following the rules and then some, I am told that I am not following the rules because the rules changed.. that the rules even make it harder on my staff, that they don't want the rules to change. I just wonder why we can't have a set of rules and then if you want the job then take it if not then leave it. And why if someone isn't doing their job, instead of a firing or what not, how about a time frame to leave... that is fair for them to look elsewhere.. oh and why is it that I can't fire someone who isn't really performing to the level of the other staff with out penalty, but they can quit tomorrow affecting the business and the other staff... putting so much more stress on the business/staff. just some related thoughts from a small business person that sees both sides.. i don't want my kids to be abused either.
14
Apples and oranges. Small businesses are able to be flexed blue and employer and employee are much more likely to have a personal relationship based on mutual respect.
yes, true. but we (most americans are employed by small businesses I believe) are being aggregated in labor law with the big guys. Osha regs, labor regs, etc. etc. leads me to say, that big business loves regulation, they write it and make billions on it.. and it is a barrier to entry to competition.
This is merely a continuation of a long term trend to lower employee costs and boost corporate profits. Strong anti-union stances by employers, reductions in health and other benefits and fewer companies offering pensions are all reasons why workers have insufficient retirement savings, why more workers must hold down more than one job to make ends meet, and why our average life spans have begun to decline.
96
Obamacare is the direct reason why life expectancies have declined for three years running. It turns out that the huge profits granted to big medicine by the Democrats did not result in healthcare that was accessible or affordable. It also resulted in the creation of part-time jobs in the private sector in order to reduce employer health insurance fines.
Employers in the private sector have always preferred to operate in a non-union environment. Federal and state laws have evolved to address the employer abuses of the past, which has reduced the need for unionization on the part of workers. National and international unions have moved away from a focus on the interests of workers to focusing on the political objectives of union leadership. They devote ever increasing amounts of coerced dues on things that have zero connection to the needs of unions. Reduced need, increased union dues, low off-shore labor costs and employer motivation to create favorable working conditions to avoid unionization have resulted in the obsolescence of private sector unions.
The primary beneficiaries of class action suits are trial attorneys, not the working class. Workers who claim to have been short paid can make a complaint to the local labor board or can file an arbitration complaint, neither one of which costs the employee anything, but does not result in a high paid jobs program for attorneys.
1
Litote forgot to mention an important enabler of all that: the political control exercised by the billionaire class through their long-term development of right-wing, anti-worker ideology and their purchase of the Republican party and many Democratic politicians. Money talks even without a boost from the born-on-the-moon anti-people Supreme Court.
ebmem is peddling nonsense, as usual. The recent declines in life expectancy are directly related to the spread of opioid addiction, which is directly related to the collapse of rural economies. Compulsory arbitration means compulsory; there is no option to go to "the local labor board", whatever that is; arbitration involves substantial costs for a family that can't lay out $400 for an emergency (that means nearly half our population is poor). But never mind that.
1
Per the CDC, the main reason for reduced life expectancy in the past two years has been opioid use, especially among those under 50. In addition, too many Americans continue to have problems with obesity and diabetes.
As to the ACA, I have a hard time reconciling a substantial reduction in the number of uninsured with declines in longevity but in any case your point is well taken that factors other than less favorable conditions in the workplace are reducing longevity.
n a somewhat perverse way, this decision may be a boon for union organizing. Currently, one of the big pitches is we will get you a contract that says your employer must have good cause to fire you. Now, the unions have a new and attractive appeal: we will prevent your boss from barring the courthouse doors to you. Notwithstanding the niceties of illegal or permissible subjects of bargaining, I think a union could lawfully refuse to agree to a grievance arbitration provision which covers anything other than the terms of the union contract. Because I doubt that the statutory reforms the authors advocate will occur in the present political climate, I’ll be interested in the next moves from the national unions. Sometimes, be careful what you wish for.
24
The downside of unions is of course that they tend to damage the companies, and even industries, where they organize.
I grew up in Pittsburgh, which once had a thriving steel sector. But not any more. The unions made it so expensive to produce domestic steel, that steel buyers eventually started buying foreign steel.
Job were lost. Communities were destroyed. In large part thanks to unions. Sigh.
9
Rethink that. It wasn’t unions, it was ‘free’ trade.
1
Could it be that union demands for a safe workplace, decent wages and benefits played a lesser role in steel's demise than the fact that wages in other parts of the world were ninety percent less than here, that benefits and safety regulations were non-existent?
1
The demographic in private Florida golf clubs is generally old, affluent and heavily Republican, so as one of the few members of my club who is a leftie I often feel isolated. Indeed, the few Democrats at my club have identified each other and when in earshot of other club members have whispered conversations about the current political situation (Trump).
One day in the locker room, as a social experiment (or perhaps just for fun) I asked my fellow golfers "What do you think about turning the means of production over to the workers?"
Most of the other club members showed sheer horror at the very idea. Since that day I have been viewed with suspicion as a fifth columnist of the Marxist persuasion, and with the sympathy typically offered someone who has had a seizure.
With the Supremes leaning increasingly to the right, I think the only hope for workers is to get out the vote for the mid-terms and again in 2020.
76
Bravo! Well said Mon Ray! Your post speaks the truth, and made my morning!
2
I very much believe that we will not have elections in November or in 2020 or ever again. It can happen here; it will happen here. The time is coming where we are going to need to be bloodied defending our very lives against our enemy - this very regime.
1
When nations become collectivist they begin their slide into trouble or even failure (e.g., Soviet Union, Venezuela today, 1950s Britain).
I suspect your golfing buddies are aware of this. And it might be best if you were, too.
This is just one more example proving that Republicans believe it is government's job to take care of the wealthy owners of the corporations who provide us all the goods and services we need in life to live, including the jobs to build and afford it all.
We build everything and service everyone, but never own the stuff we build or the services we provide ourselves: the owners literally come in between our selves, and cleave the connection between the work we do and the subsequent product that results from it.
They rent our selves for 8 hours/ day and legally own us and control us, and then we pay that rent income right back to them to gather up the stuff we made for them during those 8 hours just so we can survive another day to work for them.
This is the textbook definition of a protection racket: we agree to pay them with our labor, otherwise we starve and suffer exposure, there is no other option for the millions of people, only a very few can start their own businesses, and a protection racket functions on the extortion where there is no other option.
This SCOTUS ruling is wrong because it further constricts the parameters of this racket, it shrinks the scope of the one option thereby making the extortionary nature of the racket all the more pronounced. Now the worker-consumers are even less free from the confines of the racket and they are less at liberty to live their lives as their own agents.
We can either build their wealth or freeze and starve under a bridge.
110
I agree, Chris. I'd also point out that, contrary to popular belief, this human suffering and stagnation is not an necessary feature of capitalism. Americans are just conditioned to believe that - which is why this type of criticism is often dismissed as an argument for socialism.
In truth, capitalism is only able to function properly if it's strategically regulated. The system hinges on competitive markets, for example - which means monopolies (like Comcast and Time-Warner) and mega-corporations (like Wal-Mart) are explicitly bad for the economy. They're bad for the consumer and bad for the workers - inflating costs while driving down wages, all while consolidating the middle and top tiers of the hierarchy, so most workers have no chance of upward mobility.
None of it is necessary! This was not inevitable! There is literally no reason for Americans to accept this as the status quo.
78
Capitalism refers simply to private ownership. I wonder if you are referring to "free markets?"
8
Capitalism creates more wealth & power to those holding "capital", that is, money & the assets accumulated by money. Labor is a tool used by capitalists to build more wealth & accrue more power to those with capital. Money = power. Read Thomas Piketty's book, Capitalism.
Justice Gorsuch wrote a very clear opinion that was long on facts, precedent, and persuasive on the evidence. I was impressed, less so by Justice Ginsberg’s opinion, which was jam packed with facts that had little to do with the legal analysis at hand. If you don’t like it, change the law, but don’t pretend that the decision was wrongly decided.
17
Why should Merrick Garland be sitting on the Supreme Court and how is the Senate exercising its "advice and consent" powers with regards to Supreme Court appointments (which by definition includes the right to decline such advisement) amount to "outrageous machinations" is something I would like to know.
12
The Senate did not get a chance to decide on Merrick Garland. McConnell made sure of that.
4
Had Garland been confirmed to the Court...Obama would have chosen THREE out of NINE Justices, forever tilting the Court to the hard left. How many Presidents get to choose THREE Justices? it was a clear play to get power over the Court, but thank god, THE PEOPLE VOTED and blocked this from happening! God Bless Our Founding Fathers in their wisdom to create the Electoral College!
2
There is a good reason why you have to hide your identity.
When all three branches of the government become infected with the same societal prejudice, entrenched systemic bias will result. The midterm elections will hopefully be a corrective measure that may reintroduce a limited balance among the branches of government.
121
This is one of the worst decision I've seen in >20 years of practicing law. Worse than Citizens United. Amongst its many horrifying aspects, it raises the possibility that Lochner could be reborn. Kind of like a zombie.
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was something of a joke when I was in law school. "Imagine those Justices way back then believed that nonsense. Ha, ha, ha."
Now Lochner is staring us in the face, not unlike Nosferatu. If you don't believe me just read J. Ginsburg's dissent.
The distinguished labor attorney Andrew Strom says Justice Gorsuch’s "obnoxious" opinion "is full of half-truths and misleading statements". He's absolutely right.
https://onlabor.org/trumps-justice-sticks-it-to-workers/
159
Justice Gorsuch is definitely his mother's son. Don't you remember her--named EPA chief in order to wreck it, just as Clarence Thomas was named to head the EEOC in order to wreck it?
3
This editorial failed to mention that The Trump Administration reversed position that had the Obama administration which was supporting the workers case and fighting for the workers right to litigate and not be forced to go into arbitration.
So with the Supreme Court obviously business friendly and not taking or protecting workers and trump siding with business on this...the power, protection and influence of Employees is now at its lowest ebb and the era of exploitation of the majority and impoverishment of most will only get worse as their voices and choices become just whispers and closer to the slavery that has always appealed to those who hold the wealth, power and reins of industry.
The American Totocracy gains ever more complete and utter control and exploitation for the enrichment of the few and elite who want to have it all and leave just bare crumbs for those too weak to speak and who dare not shirk from their work and now must ever more do and the bosses steal their money and they cannot even sue.
52
"This editorial failed to mention that The Trump Administration reversed position that had the Obama administration which was supporting the workers case and fighting for the workers right to litigate and not be forced to go into arbitration."
This is not something that can be permanently fixed by presidential action. It requires Congress to make change a law.
1
Merrick Garland needed to be nominated by a president and appointed by a Senate. Lacking either element, he is not a judge, so stop crying over it. I would rather have seen Robert Bork on the Court than milquetost Tony, but the Senate didn't agree. I don't pretend his was a "stolen seat," although I think Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy were quite thuggish in their treatment of an eminently qualified jurist. But that is what happened.
9
Robert Bork is not an apt comparison. He got hearings and a full floor vote in the Senate. Two Democrats even voted for him. He lost fair and square.
185
Merrick Garland WAS nominated by a duly elected President, with a year remaining in his term.
Since Mitch McConnell failed in his promise to make Obama a one-term President, he did the next best thing, which was to hold the President’s Supreme Court pick hostage. He unilaterally deprived President Obama of his right to fill the seat, and, by extension, he defied the will of the majority of Americans who elected Obama and entrusted him with that duty.
If McConnell had a shred of decency, he’d be ashamed of that legacy, not proud of it. But he does not.
13
do you think the republican congress was going to approve merrick garland? after all they held a majority in both houses---even if there was a vote he would never have been on the court---this was not a stolen seat-and was it not scalia that was being replaced?
And this is just the beginning. This country will be unrecognizable in a decade.
119
I hope we get to keep our public lands.
6
This country will be like Russia in a decade, minus the free health care and more expensive.
14
Only if Americans who oppose this sit on their hands.
Why as the I.W.W. formed in 1905? Because, then as now, the wealthy and powerful oppressed workers with low wages, financial trickery, and massive public corruption.
This and subsequent generations might need to learn to sacrifice for the common good, if there is to be one in the future.
8
It's increasingly clear that labor reform, specifically worker's rights, is going to be a definitive political and social issue of our time. In fact, it encompasses many issues we don't think of in those terms.
While we debate about media representation and bathroom bills, for example, the trans community continues to be plagued by hiring discrimination, which results in a disproportionate number of trans women resorting to exploitative and dangerous sex work. That's a labor issue. The economic exploitation of undocumented immigrants is the one facet of immigration reform you rarely hear about – unless we're applauding the victims for heroically doing the jobs "no American would ever do for so little money." That's a labor issue (and a human rights issue, frankly).
My hope is that this Supreme Court ruling will spur on the recent resurgence of interest in unionizing and collective action. If conservatives are intent on bringing back Victorian era working conditions, they better have one of their think tanks figuring out the modern equivalent of the Pinkerton Agency – because today's workers have unprecedented experience launching national rallies, protests, and boycotts, and an arsenal of tools to keep them highly visible. If they decide to take this on, the bosses don't stand a chance.
40
This case was not a case on unionization-lets not conflate confuse things much as some would like to...and Gorsuch made it abundantly clear feds and states are free to inact legislation to clarify and allow class lawsuits despite arbitration agreements.
@John White - H-m-m. First: Four justices thought that the existing legislation was sufficient. Gorsuch and company didn't. Wonder why? Second: Then Gorsuch adds insult to injury by claiming that "feds and states are free to inact legislation to clarify and allow class lawsuits despite arbitration agreements." True enough, but such statements coming from SC justices with an agenda always ignore the reality of the system. Exactly what kind of effort would it take to get either the feds or the states to enact new legislation? And who would pay for it? Perhaps it would have been better to listen to Justice Ginsberg's arguments.
Corporations are people too, my friends. The BEST people. The rest of us, not so much. We just catch their crumbs, and whatever else trickles down.
Thanks, GOP. November is the BEST month.
215
"Thanks, GOP. November is the BEST month."
These laws have been in place for 80+ years and the NLRA was passed during of FDR's administration. In all that time, no one decided to pursue anything like this when SCOTUS was more liberal. So your response is to blame the GOP for this? Amazing.
HM1342, I don't understand your objection. What is the "anything like this" that "no one decided to pursue"? Are you referring to lawsuits against mandatory arbitration? If so, you didn't read that part of the article that pointed out how greatly mandatory arbitration has increased in recent years.
@AHS: "HM1342, I don't understand your objection."
Thank you for the reply. My apologies if I didn't articulate it well enough. My thought was that lawsuits of this type might have been brought before SCOTUS in the past when it was more liberally-minded. Nothing more than that.