Wait, I might be a bit young to fully understand this, but all Americans (or is it just citizens of California?) are now banned from banding together to sue a company, because "arbitration is efficient and less costly"? Are they being serious? Thanks to the decision of the Supreme Court, corporations can now scam them more easily, making it impossible for them to be sued, since one dollar from here and another from there would be too minor an addition to the regular fee? So, we might as well make it impossible for them to be sued at all, right?
Notice how the five who voted for the ban are Republican? Therefore isn't that biased? It seems as if they're putting their own political views before the case itself. Shouldn't a judge be impartial? This doesn't seem very impartial, on either side.
it was a 5-4 decision, so it's not as if the entire Supreme Court is against consumers.
I agree, and as much as I generally have a moral disagreement with government and the way society is run by the banks and corporations, I do not think all people within these organisations are out to get us. They are just trying to make a living and may not even see what they are voting for as "wrong".
Shouldn't a judge be impartial?
For shure, but thats not the way it is The whole thing is corrupt to the core and its hard to sort the selfless from the selfish.
Lets take it a step further and get rid of the lot of em.
Republicans have more guns, more money, and more power than you. Your own policies will get you killed.
Now, as for the decision, this is what happens every time. Of course they're going to put it to their agenda, that's what politics is. Every single judge on that panel does it. It's why they were put there in the first place.
Presidents love it when judges step down. It gives them a chance to throw their lot into the government for decades. It's been going on since long before Republicans even existed.
