logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
LegalGround Forum >> Bye bye class actions
| 4/27/11 1:50 PM | |
Lymond
47 
Member Since: 7/17/06 Posts: 7329 |
Concepcion came down, and in a predictable split, the Court killed class actions. Fuck me, there goes my job as we do employment class actions and corps will obviously just stick arb agreements into employment contracts. Beyond personal interest, I really dislike how the Court manages to protect corps with every decision. Nice how the FAA is now a tool to screw consumers. Guess I'll go take over the family business instead of law. |
| 4/28/11 2:29 PM | |
|
419
26
Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 18328 |
Wasn't the FAA passed before the commerce clause was expanded? |
| 4/28/11 4:37 PM | |
|
pm1964
9
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 32010 |
Good for my clients. |
| 4/29/11 1:53 PM | |
|
Fake Pie
28
Member Since: 12/2/05 Posts: 29581 |
I think the Court made the correct legal judgment. Policy wise I think Congress should address this by amending the FAA. The Court should not be in the business of fixing shitty legislation. That is what the legislative branch is for. They are just enforcing federal law. |
| 5/5/11 2:53 PM | |
|
jbapk
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 9852 |
"I think the Court made the correct legal judgment." Very little with the current Supreme Court has to do with legal judgement. Political, yes. |
| 5/5/11 4:29 PM | |
|
419
26
Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 18356 |
SCOTUS has been political since Marbury. |
| 5/10/11 9:23 AM | |
|
RexKwonDo
1
Member Since: 1/5/05 Posts: 1209 |
jbapk, are you originally from Illinois by any chance? |
| 5/10/11 11:10 AM | |
|
Lymond
47
Member Since: 7/17/06 Posts: 7382 |
LOL Thomas BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC., Petitioner v. JOHN CARDEGNA, ET AL. No. 04-1264. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 29, 2005. Decided February 21, 2006. JUSTICE ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. I remain of the view that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 285-297 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 689 (1996) (same); Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U. S. 444, 460 (2003)(same). Thus, in state-court proceedings, the FAA cannot be the basis for displacing a state law that prohibits enforcement of an arbitration clause contained in a contract that is unenforceable under state law. Accordingly, I would leave undisturbed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court. |
| 5/10/11 1:03 PM | |
|
jbapk
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 9859 |
RexKwonDo - jbapk, are you originally from Illinois by any chance? Kenya actually |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
