3 ms·

Going from experience, SCOTUS is really the ultimate say. Can you think of any ruling SCOTUS has made that was against the publics favor that was then rewritten

by yardie 16y ago

Going from experience, SCOTUS is really the ultimate say. Can you think of any ruling SCOTUS has made that was against the publics favor that was then rewritten by lawmakers? I can't think of one. It's quite understandable that people believe the legislation has been bought by corporations. If any new law does get written its going to be written by corporate lobbyist to favor the same corporations it's trying to rule over. Remember these are the same representatives that passed the Federal Arbitration Act. That act and this ruling make it all but impossible to punish corporations for malfeasance. This is why it's important to vote. Whoever leads this country will have an impact not for the next 4-8 years, but possibly 20-30. This ruling was made 5-4 along party lines. The majority were Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II candidates. Remember that when someone tells you they won't vote because they don't like either party.

hncommenter13 16y ago
1. It's easy to name a ruling on a statute that was then revised--this is not that uncommon. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_%26_Rubber_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_%26_.... The Court's ruling hewed close to the text of Title VII, but Congress didn't like the outcome, so it changed the law. 2. The Federal Arbitration Act was originally enacted in 1925 (and has been amended and interpreted quite a bit over the years, obviously). Today's Congress is not composed of the same representatives who passed the act, nor does its view of arbitration necessarily reflect the view of those who enacted it originally. 3. This is not a cut-and-dried liberal vs. conservative issue. There are complicated issues of preemption of state laws by the FAA, and what constitutes "unconscionability" in an arbitration agreement--which has been in the Court quite a bit lately (see Rent-a-Center v. Jackson from last term).

by yardie 16y ago

hncommenter13 16y ago

1. It's easy to name a ruling on a statute that was then revised--this is not that uncommon. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_%26_Rubber_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_%26_.... The Court's ruling hewed close to the text of Title VII, but Congress didn't like the outcome, so it changed the law. 2. The Federal Arbitration Act was originally enacted in 1925 (and has been amended and interpreted quite a bit over the years, obviously). Today's Congress is not composed of the same representatives who passed the act, nor does its view of arbitration necessarily reflect the view of those who enacted it originally. 3. This is not a cut-and-dried liberal vs. conservative issue. There are complicated issues of preemption of state laws by the FAA, and what constitutes "unconscionability" in an arbitration agreement--which has been in the Court quite a bit lately (see Rent-a-Center v. Jackson from last term).