The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)

[Truthmatters]

So you think its great that Mcy Ds burned the shit out of this nearly 80 year old woman?

 

[George Costanza]

Nice "cut and paste" from the Huffington Post.

Incapable of your own thoughts on the issue?

Sure, let's debate the topic. I am more than willing and able, are you?

Don't hold your breath - she's a hit and run flamer. Gets her shot in and then never returns to the thread. She sure stepped in it with her Huffingrton Post gaffe, didn't she?

Anyway, great OP, great thread. I like that phrase, our "Republican Supreme Court." Hopefully, it will catch on. I certainly intend to use it in the future.

 

[Truthmatters]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[5] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[18]

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[15] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[5] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[19]

 

[Leweman]

So you think its great that Mcy Ds burned the shit out of this nearly 80 year old woman?

McDonalds didnt do anything to her. It was an accident that she caused herself. Your paragraph explains it well. Does personal responsibility not exist in your world?

 

[Bfgrn]

Nice "cut and paste" from the Huffington Post.

Incapable of your own thoughts on the issue?

Sure, let's debate the topic. I am more than willing and able, are you?

Don't hold your breath - she's a hit and run flamer. Gets her shot in and then never returns to the thread. She sure stepped in it with her Huffingrton Post gaffe, didn't she?

Anyway, great OP, great thread. I like that phrase, our "Republican Supreme Court." Hopefully, it will catch on. I certainly intend to use it in the future.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to George Costanza again.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T’s favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous.

When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five — John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the “founders” intended.

It’s kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the “little guy” denouncing “elites” who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the “little guy.”

The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito. This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to “the law,” not to “the Constitution,” not to “calling balls and strikes,” but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism. This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige.

Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the “founders” that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.

Whole op-ed

Those greedy bastards !

 

[Uncensored2008]

Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people

All that yapping and the stupid fuck ends up saying noting at all.

What, specifically does the leftist retard object to in the ruling? How does the ruling defy precedent or the constitution? The HuffingGlue retard gives us nothing - nor does he know.

Here is the actual ruling;

{The Federal Arbitration Act says that an arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract .”}


AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION

Damn those rightwingers, holding that a contract is binding...

As usual, the 5 constitutionalists on the court upheld the constitution, where the two Marxists, Breyer and the mental midget opposed the constitution.

(Good GOD, would someone give Sotomayor a churo and some jacks to keep her occupied and not wanting to get involved with the normals?)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure, let's debate the topic. I am more than willing and able, are you?

You don't even know what the topic is, you are cutting and pasting from a leftist hate site, you have no grasp at all of the actual issue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's start here...I vehemently oppose it.

What do you oppose?

Contract law? That contracts cannot be arbitrarily voided by the ruling of a judge in a class action (lawyer enrichment) suit?

You think that states should be able to void legal contracts at a whim?

 

[peach174]

Nah, Their mad because the court ruled against a Liberal Federal policy on favoring arbitration.
They have their feather's all fluffed up about it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OH PLEASE !
How about reading the supreme court document first and not some left wing political agenda blogger.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf

The Concepcions did not read the contract fully about paying for sales tax on a free phone.If they had read the rules before agreeing to ATT &T's contract they would have seen that they must pay for the sales tax.
The ruling states that a group can not file suite but individuals still can.
This blogger for Huffington Post is upset because the court ruled that this was a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration.
It's the Concepcions fault for not reading the rules before interring a contract with ATT&T.
Too many people are doing this, everyone ,READ ANY CONTRACT BEFORE YOU AGREE TO ANYTHING.

I read the OP...nothing about the case

I read the attached HuffPo Op-ed...nothing about the case, just flying spittle and venom over Republicans....came back to see if anyone else noticed and found your post

Well done PosRep inbound!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nah, Their mad because the court ruled against a Liberal Federal policy on favoring arbitration.
They have their feather's all fluffed up about it.

That may be what Pravda (LA Times, et al) is upset about, but those posting here haven't a hint of a clue what the actual issue is. They are merely aping outrage at the prompting of their handlers from the leftist hate sites.

At the root of this is contract law. California attempted to void contracts and allow rape via class action suits rather than through arbitration, despite the clear language that disputes would be settled via arbitration rather than enriching crooked lawyers.

Obviously the firm of Dewy, Skrewem and Howe is upset at the prospect of not raping AT&T for several billion dollars, distributing $1.32 to the complainants and pocketing the rest. The crooked democrats serve the interests of the lawyers, so naturally they are upset But the public wins because this secures the application of contract law. A contract is enforceable.

 

[California Girl]

Opinions, everyone has 'em. But getting yours from the HuffPuff marks you out as an idiot.

Then you must be visiting the Huffington Post, because the link will take you to josephapalermo.com

It's a blog from a HuffPuff contributor.

Seriously, I don't need to have my opinions given to me by others, I am intelligent enough to research, study, think and form my own.

It appears that you do not possess these skills.

 

[George Costanza]

Have read the case yet, so I won't comment on it. But class actions can and do get out of hand. I will take the Dell Financial on I join. I got a wopping $11 after attorney's fees. I don't even remember the harm I got, but I remember the letter I recented adn the free lunch it bought me.

$16 (with attorney's fee) x say conservatively 1 million people = $16 million to the big bad corporation. Consumers like me felt little pain or effect, but the corporation take a huge slap in the face. I can understand why the standard can be questioned!

The purpose of class actions is not to compensate the injured parties. It is to punish the corporation by hitting it hard in the pocketbook, so that it will cease doing whatever it was doing to cause the class action to be filed in the first place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T’s favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous.

When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five — John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the “founders” intended.

It’s kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the “little guy” denouncing “elites” who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the “little guy.”

The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito. This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to “the law,” not to “the Constitution,” not to “calling balls and strikes,” but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism. This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige.

Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the “founders” that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.

Whole op-ed

Why The Times Is Wrong About AT&T Class Action Case - Daniel Fisher - Full Disclosure - Forbes

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice "cut and paste" from the Huffington Post.

Incapable of your own thoughts on the issue?

Sure, let's debate the topic. I am more than willing and able, are you?

You might be willing, but you aren't able.

The AT&T contract allows gives anyone who opts for arbitration after AT&T's last offer $7,500 and double all their legal fees if they win an award higher than AT&T offers. Additionally, every consumer can opt out of arbitration as an individual if they so desire. The only people who would have won anything from this would have been the lawyers. Your blatant misdirection about making this about the little guy, and not the fat cat lawyers, shows where your true loyalties lie.

 

[rdean]

The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)

They're Republicans. What did you expect?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is the second assult on class actions suits brought to us by the courts.

In another finding of about a decade ago, they made it much more financially difficult for legal firms to even try to undertake such actions in the first place.

This most recent ruling is even more outragous. It's like they're not even trying to pretend, anymore, that the law is not entirely a handmaiden to these corporate giants.

Consider what we have created here... we have created organizations

1.That can exist from generation to generation

2. With virtually the same legal rights as true persons (in many cases better legal protections than those given to persons)

3. That protect their shareholders from catastropic bankruptsy and even in most cases from the criminal actions of their corporations

4. That can insinuate themselves into our politics

5. That can transfer wealth to other nations where it they no are longer subject to our laws nor responsible for the debts these corporations have created IN OUR NAMES.


And now we are making these amoral organizations nearly completely impervious to lawsuits from their class of customers?!

And not every person on this board who claims that they love this nation isn't outraged by these legal FRANKENSTIENS we have allowed to be created amongst us?


Oligarchies masked behind the veil of corporate entities and democratic republics cannot exist in the same political clime, folks.

Neither, incidently, can real capitalism exist under such a system.

The only possible outcome of us such a system is FASCIST capitalos, (AKA corporatism).

This system has already raped the bottom four quintiles of our nation, folks.

The firth quintile, basically the corporate servant and small investor class of these oligarchs will be NEXT.

Some of you who of of that happy upper 1/5th class have already tasted their lash in this latest economic meltdown as you were systematically swindled.

You were swindled by their rating agencies, and by the government that works on the behalf of these too big to fail (or regulate) ongoing criminal enterprises.

YOU pay most of the taxes already. That is how they have lulled you into thinking YOU are part of their team

But you folks are the last people in America left with any money to take or with any power to threaten these criminal cabals.

Do you REALLY think that you won't be systematically stripped of that money and your rights through financial machination and though the erosion of you legal rights?

Seriously?

I know that some of you do think that you are too special, too smart, too important to the system NOT to be targeted.

That, my friends is exactly what the JEWS of Germany thought, too even as they saw their right eroded and the same kind of corporate/government gangsterism developing in their nation.

They were so comfortable and thought themselves so secure because they were important to the system that they simple could not concieve of exactly how vulnerable they were to a society gone mad.

tick tock, citizens.

You who are also modestly affluent citizens and tools to the corporations.... YOU are next.

Still pissed about being caught breaking the law I see.

 

[Zona]

Opinions, everyone has 'em. But getting yours from the HuffPuff marks you out as an idiot.

No more so than someone getting theirs from Fox.

What in the article was incorrect anyway?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Opinions, everyone has 'em. But getting yours from the HuffPuff marks you out as an idiot.

No more so than someone getting theirs from Fox.

What in the article was incorrect anyway?

It was an OPINION, not a litany of facts. And last I checked one is supposed to develop their own opinions not get them spoon feed to them by a political rag.