[scottinoc]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to do something she rarely does: read her dissent from the bench.

Wow, hope she didn't over exert herself.

[mbarker12474]

Aren’t free people always free to associate with other free people and organize?

Does this court opinion negate this principle of liberty?

(Should I go and actually read the case and opinion?)

[Jim W N]

All of that is wonderful, but remember:

SCOTUS DOES NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE NATIONAL LAW.

[BenLurkin]

CNN makes it sound like this was exceptional, but the decision itself was based on very basic legal principals.

The only reason it was a 5-4 decision is that there are too many left-leaning activists on the court.

[TBP]

We need a couple more like Gorsuch.

[WASCWatch]

I don’t think the majority favored big business. They simply applied the law Congress passed. The court even implied that they might not think the contracts are fair, only that it is the law.

And this isn’t bad for employees, either. If they have a solid case, an attorney will take it on contingency, or a large group can fund the expense associated with arbitration, which is far lower than going to court. If they win in arbitration, they get all the money due to them and the employer pays their legal fees.

There are arbitration agreements between companies in separate countries that have potentially billions at stake, so it’s not like arbitration provisions are only to screw over the little guy.

[Obadiah]

The SC didn’t “side with big business”, they adjudicated the case correctly. It was the liberals on the court who tried to twist the law into something it’s not because they emotionally sided with the employees.

In this case, employees signed agreements with their employer agreeing to resolve disputes through arbitration. No one forced them to sign. No one forced them to work for said employer. And the kicker is that the person at the very head of this “big business” that won is on the far left, but the corrupt MSM dare not mention that.

[Nifster]

How rude to follow the law as written by congress

[Ohioan]

What a backwards way to describe Judge Gorsuch's role. While the decision may have pleased the President, as well as business, that was hardly what inspired Justice Gorsuch, whose whole career attests that he is a man of principle.

Cnn is used to the special interest motivations of Leftwind Democrats, and may actually believe there was some such motive for Justice Gorsuch, but I would seriously doubt it.

[apillar]

Had the ruling had gone the other way it would have been a huge lawsuit magnate. The democrats wanted it because it would have been a huge cash cow for the trial lawyers as every two-bit ambulance chaser would now be able to file a class action lawsuit against any employer they wanted to shakedown.

[Wuli]

In 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Obama changed 77 years of legal understanding of the law (N ational L abor R elations A act) enforced by the NLRB. By mere executive fiat the NLRB invalidated all prior legal understanding of the NLRA to say that provisions of the Federal Arbitration act are invalidated by the NLRA.

How could 77 years of legal understanding of what Congress legislated suddenly change, by mere executive fiat, without Congress itself having revisited the laws and changed them? It couldn’t, but the NLRB tried to do it on it’s own.

That was followed with some circuit courts suddenly deferring to the reasoning of the new found executive ruling of the NLRB even though it stands as contrary to legal history and multiple prior Supreme Court decisions.

With circuit courts ruling differently on similar cases on this issue, the Supreme Court took the case, endeavoring to resolve any disputes between the lower courts.

The Supreme Court decided in favor of the 77 years of legal understanding of the National Labor Relations Act and the Federal Arbitration Act, finding there is no conflict between them and the National Labor Relations Act has never, and is not now, a legal means of invalidating arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Many ignorant of the law are posing this ruling as a big change in what has been legally possible for employees seeking claims against employers, when actually it does not portend a big change, but leaves in place what have been the previous legal standards and means.

If Congress wants to change that, it can, but using mere executive fiat or just as bad, judicial fiat to change the law is not the route to go. All the court did was what courts should do - invalidate changes the executive attempts to make in the law by themselves, instead of asking Congress to change the law.

[Tax-chick]

The ruling was a victory for business and the Trump administration the rule of law.