Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
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.”

Excellent post, folks what we are seeing here is just tying up the loose ends of the end game, the top .01% have all the tools in place to deal with all the rest of the 99.99% of us.

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by airspoon

 

Perhaps people should read the fine print in their contracts instead.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its customer contracts

If people don't like the terms of a contract that they sign, they are free to find another service provider.

do you know how much time it would take to read all the T&C for every thing that has them. fine print should be illegal all contracts should be avalible in laymans terms instead of the long drawn out contracts that are writen in lawyer speak. the contracts are made like this so if you try and win you speand half your life reading 99% pointless words 1% substance

This is a wash for the average person. The only people who get rich on class action are lawyers - period. What lawyers do is take people who would not have much of a case, combine them into one collective, to get a case. On occasion, folks make a few bucks, but most often they get little or nothing in the end, but the lawyers, who use said folks as fodder, win big. People can still sue.

The Supreme Court is about rulings related to commerce, not human existence. Follow Protoplasmictraveler's stellar work in the topic of what government really is. One odd fact, when the court ruled that corps are like people, they were right. People, as they are now, are corporations, the court just said that if people are - and they are, then there is no distinction between a corp of one or many. The ruling was correct, but not for the reasons people think. The ruling is WAY wrong but not for the reasons people think either.

I am elated to read this post. My only belated contribution is that we do have a course of action that doesn't involve violence or passive sit-ins. This solution will be initially painful/uncomfortable for us as consumers. This is a supply and demand economy, and if there is no demand for the products that corporations offer, we will in fact asphyxiate them.

We are smart, and we can find ways to systematically deplete their coffers by non-participation. I am not talking about boycotting a specific company. Rather, boycotting one specific item, like media, or insurance (a favorite of mine).

If everybody in the US cancelle d their insurance policies (health, property/casualty, life) for an indeterminate number of months or permanently, we would see a change in the way the insurance companies operate. Perhaps, if we are really, really lucky, they'll stop existing all together, but if they do survive, in order to generate any kind of income, they will need to reinvent themselves and the way they do business. Granted, there is a level of naivete and illegality to what I say, as we are obligated to purchase car insurance and in some cases homeowners, but even if it's illegal, they can't arrest the entire population...

On a personal note, I find it bewildering that we have transformed the landowners of yore, first into captains of industry and now through the miracle of law, into corporations and all the while every generation thinks it's smarter and better off than the previous one, but we keep participating in the same rigged scheme in which the interest of a few, subjugate the needs and interests of many.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Watts


Who's to say when. All it takes is one little catalyst. Who knows what that may be. With the LA riots, although it was a somewhat different situation it could be looked at as symbolic. Cops(corporations/wealthy) getting away with the beating of a helpless outnumbered minority man(middle class/poor) turned into an all out riot.

But who really won and lost in those riots? The poor people in the inner city basically destroyed their own neighborhoods. The wealthy were not 'cowering in the corner', as you say.

And that would be the same for your fantasy of 'riots'. It would only benefit those currently in power. When has violent upheaval EVER worked to create a better world?

America instantly comes to mind but what do I know. Imagine if we had held peaceful demonstrations instead of the REVOLUTIONARY WAR.