Supreme Court ends Class Action lawsuits [AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion]

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

It was you who brought up Arizona.

I thought I finished with that back in post #25.

This is an example of an unambiguous admission of error:

@Bricker

Just to reiterate, in a calmer but no less embarrassed tone of voice, that it’s difficult for me to imagine being much wronger than I was here. My initial concession was based on a discovery that made the statement technically true, but I harbored in the back of my mind a small sense of, “Well, 10%, OK, but still…”

But I’ve continued to research, and I now see the truth of the description above, and it’s utterly clear to me that PP does indeed provide mammograms in every sense of the word “provide.”

Again, sorry to have been a clueless ass on this claim. And I appreciate the ignorance fought.

Here is an example of a concession buried down deep, disguised and frocked to make it almost painless:

@Whack-a-Mole

I think some issues are getting conflated and I sidetracked a bit.

First, Bricker is saying SB1070 and the California law are the same because they both run afoul of the Supremacy Clause.

That much is true.

What is different is SB1070 has been enjoined and the cases so far have been about the injunction. The merits of the case itself have not been argued as regards SB1070. Whether there are other constitutional issues at stake there I think is definitely arguable. We’ll have to see what case they make (although again foreign policy is a constitutionally granted right so the authority to determine immigration policy I think is solidly covered by the constitution).

In this case clearly the court did not deem the Federal Arbitration Act unconstitutional. Indeed I am not sure California was even floating a test case and probably just wrote a law without thinking it ran afoul of federal law (although to be honest I do not know).

I will say I am surprised that citizens have no protection against this. Corporations can now quite easily force arbitration on me when I buy their products if there is a dispute. I suppose you could say I do not have to buy their products but:

A) Do you think there is a company out there who will not make this part of their boilerplate legalese when buying a product such that anyone will have an alternate choice.

and…

B) Bricker may be happy we all need attorneys with us to interpret what we are getting ourselves into every time we buy something but I think it is unreasonable to expect the average person to be able to understand what all the legalese in those agreements are getting them into merely by purchasing something in a store.

I personally cannot think of anything in the constitution that would protect a citizen from that but I think it is a glaring oversight. ALL of us (you two included) are susceptible to this. If some company dorks you over for a hundred dollars, something they are doing to all their customers, you’ll be in the same boat as everyone else and just have to suck it up and smile.

Do you think I was happy to type that concession? Of course not. It made me look foolish, that I spouted off without checking my facts first.

But I did it, because I fucked up. I did it unambiguously. I didn’t try to hide the admission in the midst of other stuff, with ambiguous words.

Try it sometime.