That's the 2011 agreement on their website, not the 2006 agreement, so I don't know what wording has changed. The petition references it in the appendix, but the pdf doesn't include the appendices. It does lead to confusion for me, because every single summary of the case, sans Scalia but including plenty of other lawyers, indicates that AT&T is attempting to compel arbitration under the arbitration agreement. Additionally, it still forces you to forgo your rights to a trial-by-jury and class action, so Scalia's wording is somewhat generous to AT&T's position. It appears that AT&T's arbitration clause was on the more consumer-friendly side but it was still very limiting.
And, again, the problem with this ruling isn't just this specific case, it's that it applies to all arbitration clauses and that many of them do prevent access to the courts, either in full or in part. We both keep going back and forth between AT&T's clause and mandatory arbitration clauses in general, which is muddying the waters.
Full Version: The Democrat Thread
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) 
We're talking about two things here. Arbitration decisions are legally binding yes, that's true. But in most case arbitration decisions are not the final resolution of the matter. They're more, hey lets talk with this guy and see what he thinks and maybe he'll help us reach a fair settlement. It's more of a neutral parties' recommendation for a resolution of the matter.
My point was that these arbitration systems are probably not binding on either party unless they've agreed to that arrangement beforehand. That might well be in the agreement you sign with these companies, I dunno. But they have to leave you the option of also filing a suit in court (before deciding to go to arbitration). My understanding was that a company can't force you to ONLY go through arbitration, with no other recourse.
My point was that these arbitration systems are probably not binding on either party unless they've agreed to that arrangement beforehand. That might well be in the agreement you sign with these companies, I dunno. But they have to leave you the option of also filing a suit in court (before deciding to go to arbitration). My understanding was that a company can't force you to ONLY go through arbitration, with no other recourse.
This is the crux of the argument, and I still maintain that your position here is wrong. Companies can and do routinely force customers to agree to mandatory binding arbitration clauses that require them to forfeit their rights to file a suit in the judicial system or be part of a class action. The arbitration decisions are final and enforceable, and while there is opportunity for judicial review, it is a very narrow review and extremely rare for a decision to be changed.
Rent-A-Center v Jackson, which I cited a few pages ago, involves mandatory arbitration that barred the plaintiff from filing any judicial suit; they were required to go to arbitration, even if the arbitration clause itself was at issue.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf
RAC employees were contractually barred from filing suit against RAC. Everything had to go through an arbitrator.
Why do we want to hand over our judicial system and our civil rights to mandatory arbitration proceedings that are not held to the same standards and requirements as judicial rulings but contain the same weight of enforcement? This is not a blanket attack on all arbitration; clearly, it has its benefits. But it is an aggressive questioning of the courts' willingness to hand over the rights of consumers and employees to corporations who are free to bar them from their right to judicial litigation.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf
QUOTE
The Agreement provided for arbitration of all “past, present or future” disputes arising out of Jackson’s employment with Rent-A-Center, including “claims for discrimination” and “claims for violation of any federal,law.” App. 29–30. It also provided that “[t]he Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency. . .shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.
RAC employees were contractually barred from filing suit against RAC. Everything had to go through an arbitrator.
Why do we want to hand over our judicial system and our civil rights to mandatory arbitration proceedings that are not held to the same standards and requirements as judicial rulings but contain the same weight of enforcement? This is not a blanket attack on all arbitration; clearly, it has its benefits. But it is an aggressive questioning of the courts' willingness to hand over the rights of consumers and employees to corporations who are free to bar them from their right to judicial litigation.
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 02:52 PM)
Rent-A-Center v Jackson, which I cited a few pages ago, involves mandatory arbitration that barred the plaintiff from filing any judicial suit; they were required to go to arbitration, even if the arbitration clause itself was at issue.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf
RAC employees were contractually barred from filing suit against RAC. Everything had to go through an arbitrator.
Why do we want to hand over our judicial system and our civil rights to mandatory arbitration proceedings that are not held to the same standards and requirements as judicial rulings but contain the same weight of enforcement? This is not a blanket attack on all arbitration; clearly, it has its benefits. But it is an aggressive questioning of the courts' willingness to hand over the rights of consumers and employees to corporations who are free to bar them from their right to judicial litigation.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf
RAC employees were contractually barred from filing suit against RAC. Everything had to go through an arbitrator.
Why do we want to hand over our judicial system and our civil rights to mandatory arbitration proceedings that are not held to the same standards and requirements as judicial rulings but contain the same weight of enforcement? This is not a blanket attack on all arbitration; clearly, it has its benefits. But it is an aggressive questioning of the courts' willingness to hand over the rights of consumers and employees to corporations who are free to bar them from their right to judicial litigation.
From reading you quote there, it sounds to me like they have to force you to go to arbitration first. I've said that's fine. I don't see anywhere that says that's the only recourse and that if they're not happy with the arbitration decision they're precluded from filing a suit. The rest of the language deals with issues relating to interpreting the agreement itself, which again, needs to be put through arbitration before proceeding to litigation.
i'm tired of debating this. im gonna do some legal research and see what the courts have actually decided. might not be until monday though
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 03:47 PM)
From reading you quote there, it sounds to me like they have to force you to go to arbitration first. I've said that's fine. I don't see anywhere that says that's the only recourse and that if they're not happy with the arbitration decision they're precluded from filing a suit. The rest of the language deals with issues relating to interpreting the agreement itself, which again, needs to be put through arbitration before proceeding to litigation.
The only thing you can file suit for is review of the arbitration decision which is a very narrow review. Arbitrators are not judges. They aren't juries. They're not held to the same standards as courts and don't have to follow the same rules. Their rulings can and often are kept secret. You can be banned from acting as a class. You can be forced to pay very high upfront arbitration fees and be subject to paying legal representation for the other side if you lose.
You are signing your rights to litigation away with these agreements. I don't know how anyone is comfortable with that.
Because youre painting with an extremely broad brush.
I think there could possibly be an exception to arbitration:
IE A party may file a pleading with a state/federal court asking a judge to review whether or not arbitration would unfairly prejudice the party.
I think there could possibly be an exception to arbitration:
IE A party may file a pleading with a state/federal court asking a judge to review whether or not arbitration would unfairly prejudice the party.
It would probably have to be reviewed by the arbitrator!
This could effectively be the end of class action lawsuits, at least until the law is changed.
This could effectively be the end of class action lawsuits, at least until the law is changed.
Not really, it would only affect class action lawsuits where there was a valid arbitration clause.
And arbitration decisions can be reviewed by the Circuit or Federal court. In Illinois you have to register arbitration decisions with a court and can vacate an award pursuant to 710 ILCS 5/12.
I just dont see arbitration per se as a bad thing.
And arbitration decisions can be reviewed by the Circuit or Federal court. In Illinois you have to register arbitration decisions with a court and can vacate an award pursuant to 710 ILCS 5/12.
I just dont see arbitration per se as a bad thing.
Nor do I. But reviewing an arbitration decision is still not the same thing as filing a small claims suit in the first place, correct?
What's to prevent the majority of companies from inserting clauses banning class action into the agreements? The States have no way to overturn these now, and it's my understanding that a significant percentage of consumer contracts employee these sorts of provisions. More and more employers are adding them as well. Legally, there's nothing to stop every company from inserting 100% enforceable mandatory arbitration and class action bans into every consumer and employment contract. That's the impact of this ruling.
What's to prevent the majority of companies from inserting clauses banning class action into the agreements? The States have no way to overturn these now, and it's my understanding that a significant percentage of consumer contracts employee these sorts of provisions. More and more employers are adding them as well. Legally, there's nothing to stop every company from inserting 100% enforceable mandatory arbitration and class action bans into every consumer and employment contract. That's the impact of this ruling.
Jesus Christ. I would split all this stuff off in its own thread but it's like a 10 page argument.
Bow before my dominance of The Democrat Thread with pointless internet arguments!
(it's been slow at work)
(it's been slow at work)
lol. you guys post it when I'm at work too so I come back to like 5 more pages every day
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 05:42 PM)
Bow before my dominance of The Democrat Thread with pointless internet arguments!
(it's been slow at work)
(it's been slow at work)
Check the thread post count b****.
What a repugnant douche wad.
QUOTE
Daniels To Sign Bill Stripping Federal Funds From Planned Parenthood in Indiana
Republican Governor Mitch Daniels released a statement Friday afternoon saying he will sign legislation stripping federal funds from Planned Parenthood in Indiana, the first state to make such a move.
...
Once he signs the bill, it will go into effect immediately, and would bar Planned Parenthood from receiving any public dollars -- including Medicaid payments, which are crucial to the group's patient population.
"We do around 500 pap tests a week," Indiana Planned Parenthood President Betty Cockrum told TPM in an interview earlier on Friday. "We will be making phone calls to Medicaid patients all over the state and telling them, either you have to pay for that pap test out of pocket, or you need to find someone else who can take you as a Medicaid patient. We can't do it anymore."
There are 28 Planned Parenthood centers in the state. Almost 60 percent of patients seen last year were living under the poverty line.
The announcement was met shock by Planned Parenthood in Indiana, who had earlier expressed confidence that Daniels would weigh the bill's consequences carefully before signing.
"The signing of HB 1210 into law is unconscionable and unspeakable. We will now suffer the consequences of lawmakers who have no regard for fact-based decision making and sound public health policy," said Cockrum in a statement.
"As many as 22,000 low-income Hoosiers will lose their medical home. Countless patients will find themselves without access to lifesaving tests to avoid the tragic outcomes of cervical and breast cancer and epidemic sexually transmitted disease here in Indiana."
Republican Governor Mitch Daniels released a statement Friday afternoon saying he will sign legislation stripping federal funds from Planned Parenthood in Indiana, the first state to make such a move.
...
Once he signs the bill, it will go into effect immediately, and would bar Planned Parenthood from receiving any public dollars -- including Medicaid payments, which are crucial to the group's patient population.
"We do around 500 pap tests a week," Indiana Planned Parenthood President Betty Cockrum told TPM in an interview earlier on Friday. "We will be making phone calls to Medicaid patients all over the state and telling them, either you have to pay for that pap test out of pocket, or you need to find someone else who can take you as a Medicaid patient. We can't do it anymore."
There are 28 Planned Parenthood centers in the state. Almost 60 percent of patients seen last year were living under the poverty line.
The announcement was met shock by Planned Parenthood in Indiana, who had earlier expressed confidence that Daniels would weigh the bill's consequences carefully before signing.
"The signing of HB 1210 into law is unconscionable and unspeakable. We will now suffer the consequences of lawmakers who have no regard for fact-based decision making and sound public health policy," said Cockrum in a statement.
"As many as 22,000 low-income Hoosiers will lose their medical home. Countless patients will find themselves without access to lifesaving tests to avoid the tragic outcomes of cervical and breast cancer and epidemic sexually transmitted disease here in Indiana."
Republicans: #1 on the Economy!
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2011 -> 03:56 PM)
Republicans: #1 on the Economy!
The economy in Indiana should see an enormous surplus within a year or so based on this prudent move.
QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2011 -> 05:19 PM)
The economy in Indiana should see an enormous surplus within a year or so based on this prudent move.
just imagine if they could stop all those homos from f***ing and spreading their homo viruses everywhere
I meant to upload this graph a long time ago
QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2011 -> 04:19 PM)
The economy in Indiana should see an enormous surplus within a year or so based on this prudent move.
Over a billion dollar this year FWIW. We are getting a tax refund and a pay down of pensions.
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2011 -> 04:46 PM)
Over a billion dollar this year FWIW. We are getting a tax refund and a pay down of pensions.
Which means Mitch Daniels is the evilist governor in the history of governors. He's not redistributing wealth the right way.
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2011 -> 04:46 PM)
Over a billion dollar this year FWIW. We are getting a tax refund and a pay down of pensions.
All because of Planned Parenthood? Wow!
LMAO!!!
QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 1, 2011 -> 08:40 AM)
LMAO!!!
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gv_44QQMcGo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gv_44QQMcGo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yeah this was all over Facebook this morning, hilarious.
"Where are Biggie and Tupac?"
Watch the full 18 minutes, it's hilarious. He gets some really good burns in on Trump.
QUOTE
While Obama was addressing the nation last night, Donald Trump was hosting a cat-fight between NeNe and Starr Jones, voting off some chick named Hope, and making an "historic" decision to bring back LaToya Jackson.
via
Today's phrase of the day: Sharia-compliant terrorism.
Obama killed the birther movement and Bin Laden in the same week. #ThatsAGoodWeek
QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 2, 2011 -> 12:01 PM)
Obama killed birthers and Bin Laden in the same week. #ThatsAGoodWeek
Going around killing people is what a Muslim Jihadist would do.
QUOTE
A Hamilton College class and their public policy professor analyzed the predicts of 26 pundits — including Sunday morning TV talkers — and used a scale of 1 to 5 to rate their accuracy. After Paul Krugman, the most accurate pundits were Maureen Dowd, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “The Bad” list includes Thomas Friedman, Clarence Page, and Bob Herbert.
Hehe. Want to be right on stuff? Be a liberal and avoid law school.
Trump said he wants to call a truce and stop the partisan bickering.
That is funny as hell, the "bickering" was going one way and Obama was ignoring him. Finally Obama responds and it's a nasty combo of b**** slaps that stung (ending in him roasting Trump while an operation was underway to kill Osama bin Laden, and the announcement pre-empts his show the following day). Trump cries uncle at first contact like his name was Cedric Benson.
Lesson learned? Stay in your lane.
That is funny as hell, the "bickering" was going one way and Obama was ignoring him. Finally Obama responds and it's a nasty combo of b**** slaps that stung (ending in him roasting Trump while an operation was underway to kill Osama bin Laden, and the announcement pre-empts his show the following day). Trump cries uncle at first contact like his name was Cedric Benson.
Lesson learned? Stay in your lane.
QUOTE (lostfan @ May 2, 2011 -> 07:05 PM)
Trump said he wants to call a truce and stop the partisan bickering.
That is funny as hell, the "bickering" was going one way and Obama was ignoring him. Finally Obama responds and it's a nasty combo of b**** slaps that stung (ending in him roasting Trump while an operation was underway to kill Osama bin Laden, and the announcement pre-empts his show the following day). Trump cries uncle at first contact like his name was Cedric Benson.
Lesson learned? Stay in your lane.
That is funny as hell, the "bickering" was going one way and Obama was ignoring him. Finally Obama responds and it's a nasty combo of b**** slaps that stung (ending in him roasting Trump while an operation was underway to kill Osama bin Laden, and the announcement pre-empts his show the following day). Trump cries uncle at first contact like his name was Cedric Benson.
Lesson learned? Stay in your lane.
Bigger f*** you from Obama this weekend: Trump, or ISI?
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2011 -> 09:26 PM)
Bigger f*** you from Obama this weekend: Trump, or ISI?
Good question.
are we totally sold that ISI was complicit?
QUOTE (bmags @ May 3, 2011 -> 10:29 AM)
are we totally sold that ISI was complicit?
Its either that or they are worst f***ing spy agency on the planet. I mean worse than Spy vs Spy who always let the other guy blow him up. If that is the case, they need to shutdown and return the tax money that is funding them, because they are a complete fail.
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2011 -> 04:37 PM)
Its either that or they are worst f***ing spy agency on the planet. I mean worse than Spy vs Spy who always let the other guy blow him up. If that is the case, they need to shutdown and return the tax money that is funding them, because they are a complete fail.
yeah, but it did take US 4 years from really honing in on the courier to finalize this, and i assume they aren't as good as us. There have been fugitives in the US who've also lasted this long and pakistan is far less developed.
QUOTE (bmags @ May 3, 2011 -> 10:42 AM)
yeah, but it did take US 4 years from really honing in on the courier to finalize this, and i assume they aren't as good as us. There have been fugitives in the US who've also lasted this long and pakistan is far less developed.
I'm not saying we were great, but it also isn't like he just spent 4 years across the street from West Point either.
QUOTE (bmags @ May 3, 2011 -> 11:42 AM)
yeah, but it did take US 4 years from really honing in on the courier to finalize this, and i assume they aren't as good as us. There have been fugitives in the US who've also lasted this long and pakistan is far less developed.
Correction...4 years from getting the guy's name, 2 years or less from actually finding his residence and location.
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2011 -> 11:37 AM)
Its either that or they are worst f***ing spy agency on the planet. I mean worse than Spy vs Spy who always let the other guy blow him up. If that is the case, they need to shutdown and return the tax money that is funding them, because they are a complete fail.
^^This
I read some quotes from Pakistani officials saying this is an intelligence failure and acting embarrassed. LOL I'm not sure which is worse. They've been ADAMANTLY denying bin Laden was in their country for YEARS and then, hey! There he is. Oh s***!
QUOTE (lostfan @ May 3, 2011 -> 07:34 PM)
^^This
I read some quotes from Pakistani officials saying this is an intelligence failure and acting embarrassed. LOL I'm not sure which is worse. They've been ADAMANTLY denying bin Laden was in their country for YEARS and then, hey! There he is. Oh s***!
I read some quotes from Pakistani officials saying this is an intelligence failure and acting embarrassed. LOL I'm not sure which is worse. They've been ADAMANTLY denying bin Laden was in their country for YEARS and then, hey! There he is. Oh s***!
And not just in their country or something. He was hiding in a town of like a million and a half people, close to their military training center. He wasn't even on a mountian or in a cave where you can play dumb. He was essentially hanging out in a mansion in the equivalent of downtown Indianapolis.
I think that there are people in the Pakastani govt who may have worked with Osama. But im not sure the entire govt is to blame.
If the facts are true, Osama never left the compound, he never used the phone, he never used computers. Also all of our US intelligence was saying that he was hiding in a secluded location.
He just wasnt doing anything to raise suspicion and hiding in a town of half a million was the exact reason we didnt find him quicker, we just werent looking there.
If the facts are true, Osama never left the compound, he never used the phone, he never used computers. Also all of our US intelligence was saying that he was hiding in a secluded location.
He just wasnt doing anything to raise suspicion and hiding in a town of half a million was the exact reason we didnt find him quicker, we just werent looking there.
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 3, 2011 -> 08:34 PM)
I think that there are people in the Pakastani govt who may have worked with Osama. But im not sure the entire govt is to blame.
If the facts are true, Osama never left the compound, he never used the phone, he never used computers. Also all of our US intelligence was saying that he was hiding in a secluded location.
He just wasnt doing anything to raise suspicion and hiding in a town of half a million was the exact reason we didnt find him quicker, we just werent looking there.
If the facts are true, Osama never left the compound, he never used the phone, he never used computers. Also all of our US intelligence was saying that he was hiding in a secluded location.
He just wasnt doing anything to raise suspicion and hiding in a town of half a million was the exact reason we didnt find him quicker, we just werent looking there.
That's what they say. They knew he was there for a while...
A while is relative.
We knew he was there for "a while"
QUOTE (bmags @ May 4, 2011 -> 09:06 AM)
We knew he was there for "a while"
Are you reading the news at all? The planners of this gave it a 60-80% chance that he was there on the day of the mission. They didn't KNOW anything. They suspected that someone important was there, and they guessed it was him, and only since last August.
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2011 -> 09:41 AM)
Are you reading the news at all? The planners of this gave it a 60-80% chance that he was there on the day of the mission. They didn't KNOW anything. They suspected that someone important was there, and they guessed it was him, and only since last August.
Yeah, there was a huge risk in being wrong about that. The CIA went and had the evidence reviewed again by an independent team who also agreed with the ~80% likelihood, so they went ahead with the mission.
Jon Stewart busted out a clip from his show in 2006, where he directly asks Musharraf where Bin Laden is... pretty classic.
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2011 -> 03:41 PM)
Are you reading the news at all? The planners of this gave it a 60-80% chance that he was there on the day of the mission. They didn't KNOW anything. They suspected that someone important was there, and they guessed it was him, and only since last August.
So we had gathered all this evidence and tracked a courier there, and we only were 80% certain. That doesn't prove any point about why the pakistanis should have known. I'm not saying they didn't. But I'm not so sure they were so obviously hiding that they knew his whereabouts.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.