It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits

page: 4
67
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
You are finally figuring out the U.S.A. is a fascist country? It has been that way for quite a while now. politicians use polite words like corpocracy to describe the fascist political system. You should have clued in after the BP spill when Obama washed his hands of it and gave complete contol to BP. Welcome to the new USA! Oh wait gotta go Glee just came on..... :>(




posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Corporations are like gollums which are a kabbalistic type creation
This Occult connection is often ignored...
a frankenstien monster which has artificial life.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Before we all start attacking SCOTUS perhaps you should read the opinion. They were upholding a federal law... the federal arbitration law. If you are against judicial activism then you really don't have a right to complain.

This decision can easily be changed by an act of congress...

Just want to concur with the majority that corporate personhood has gone too far. I honestly think it should be repealed and replaced with something more specific detailing the rights directly.
edit on 29-4-2011 by Anon404 because: my opinion on corporate personhood



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


SCOTUS had to rule that corporations have the right to vote, because US citizens are corporations.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I'm not surprised. This just confirms what I've maintained: our judges are owned -- our judicial system is corrupt.

These people who think they can save our country by relying on the US judicial system are just naive.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Pretty soon, you won't be able to sue pharmaceutical companies.
2nd



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aisling
Pretty soon, you won't be able to sue pharmaceutical companies.
2nd


That has already partially happened:


www.dailyhealthreport.org...
Supreme Court Offers Vaccine Companies Protection From Lawsuits

Many parents have attempted to sue various makers of vaccines as children has become ill from potentially unexplained side effects from the drugs. However, the Supreme Court has offered the manufacturers of the vaccines protection from parental lawsuits.

Without completely turning their backs, however, the court ruled to compensate individuals but will protect any lawsuit based on these issues.

Judges ruled many of the cases in question to include side effects that were determined as “unavoidable”, especially if a vaccine is provided to millions of people.

Health officials explain that some people will react negatively to specific medications, and it is terrible, but the makers of the drug cannot be at fault in these situations. If lawsuits were able, the entire vaccine system could be wiped out.

Legal slavery where it's not technically slavery but your arses are still "Pwned".
edit on 29-4-2011 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


The Corporate Person is a divine person. A "living organism" that does not have to follow the same rules as lowlier living organisms such as ourselves. The corporation also has binding contracts and if the consumer wishes not to sign the binding contract, he or she can go elsewhere (to another corporation with another binding contract): basically, you are trapped by lack of alternatives.

It's almost as if we are trying to replace the natural order of things with a wholly unnatural system. I wish I had time to dig deeper, but I'll leave it there.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Question:
What's to keep a law firm from filing a single suit representing 100,000 collective people in 1 court
to instead
filing 100,000 lawsuits representing 100,000 individual people in multiple jurisdictions nationwide?

So class action is challenged/eliminated, is there no alternative recourse?




edit on 29-4-2011 by HappilyEverAfter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
And on top of that we a bailing this MotherF'ers OUT!!

What is really wrong here, judges don't do law anymore, they do favors, I feel so pissed right now, as much as when I heard you cannot use the constitution in a court of law.
edit on 29-4-2011 by Arsenis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Yes and in this world, the power is in your wallet. If people banded together and boycotted ATT&T services for a time like 6 months or so.. Imagine the repercussions.

But the beauty is in the beast. I simply won't sign any contract with ATT and state that as my reason why.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by airspoon
 


This could turn out to be a wrong move by the corporations, and wind up costing them very dearly indeed...hope so.

Think about it...class action lawsuits can involve any number of claimants with common elements of their case, coming together as a group that sues the corporation. Hundreds of thousands of people could make up a class action suit.

Think of how hundreds of thousands of people can claim individual damages/compensation, with no maximum limit based on a single case that wins against the corporation..precedent is a virtual shoe in to winners row, if the circumstances of the case and claim are virtually identical...

If the lawyers are as clever as they'd like to think they are, they will start offering alternatives to groups, based on precedent set in previous cases...it could ultimately end up costing corporations much more money than a class action suit might.

An award of $1 million dollars per judgement, doesn't sound a lot compared to $100's billion. A judge or jury would be far more willing to award $1 Million against a corporation, but would consider an award of $100's of Billions ridiculous.


edit on 28/4/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



This would be true, but unfortunately, the agreements do not go to court, they go to arbitration, which means each person has to fight on their own against a corporation that has gained experience by fighting the same battle hundreds of times



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The great crimes of the 21st century in America, are not the illegal ones, but the LEGAL ones.

I think this "can't sue the powerful" law is pushing us back to before the Magna Carta. The kings of Europe haven't had this kind of unassailable power in centuries. We've gone from Economic Royalists to Economic Emperors with this one.

Congratulations all you fascists on the Supreme Court -- you've earned your $700,000 a year in consulting fees.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Sigh...Bad news and then more bad news. I guess it will never really end. I agree that this is going too far.

I've actually been in the process of working with lawyers in a class action suit but I guess now that probably won't be happening unless there is a miracle. This has been about a 5 year process anyway. It's sick to see how well companies are treated even after they are proven to be fradulent. So now I, and anyone else in my position, will lose our money while the company gets to reap the rewards as they always have.

What a depressing world...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
What do expect people?

Companies are leaving America and the jobs are going away because of law suits.
Its not like any of you can prove that anyone was hurt anyways, suing is for wimps
and now the constitution is being followed. Think of all the jobs that are being saved?

Keep up the good work SCOTUS!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


That was sarcasm right?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Janky Red
 


That was sarcasm right?


Supreme
with a cherry on top

I punched myself while typing it...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The only way out is to give back everything, let the system die, and rebuild a new one based on equality for all.

Anyone ready for the Plan at the bottom of my posts yet?

If you are not yet, you will be.

See you then!

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
i thought the supreme court was the last "good" part of the govt well im wrong, hey according to the constitution were allowed(the people) to destroy and revolt against any destructive govt that violates the laws set by the constitution. the constitution was made for the people not the corporation.

basically what this does is that even if the company screws you over you cant do anything about it.

time to Revolt



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Dinogur
 


The corporatists have been loading the Supreme Court for decades. We are led to focus on issues like abortion, but the underlying drive has been to stack both sides of the court with corporate friendly candidates.

Supreme Court, Inc. NY Times


Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans? Only history will ultimately make this clear. One thing, however, is certain already: the transformation of the court was no accident. It represents the culmination of a carefully planned, behind-the-scenes campaign over several decades to change not only the courts but also the country’s political culture.

The origins of the business community’s campaign to transform the Supreme Court can be traced back precisely to Aug. 23, 1971. That was the day when Lewis F. Powell Jr., a corporate lawyer in Richmond, Va., wrote a memo to his friend Eugene B. Sydnor, then the head of the education committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In the memo, Powell expressed his concern that the American economic system was “under broad attack.”



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join