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_Rub

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 The Federal Arbitration Act was originally enacted in 1925 (and has been amended and interpreted quite a bit over the years, obviously).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).