Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Wednesday May 23, @12:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-one-was-surprised dept.

The Center for American Progress reports

The Supreme Court held on [May 21] that employers can force their employees to sign away many of their rights to sue their employers. As a practical matter, Monday's decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis [PDF] will enable employers to engage in small-scale wage theft with impunity, so long as they spread the impact of this theft among many employees.

Neil Gorsuch, who occupies the seat that Senate Republicans held open for a year until Donald Trump could fill it, wrote the Court's 5-4 decision. The Court split along party lines.

Epic Systems involves three consolidated cases, each involving employment contracts cutting off employees' rights to sue their employer in a court of law. In at least one of these cases, the employees were required to sign away these rights as a condition of starting their job. In another, existing workers were told to sign away their rights if they wanted to keep working.

Each contract contained two provisions, a "forced arbitration" provision, which requires legal disputes between the employer and the employee to be resolved by a private arbitrator and not by a real court; and a provision prohibiting employees from bringing class actions against the employer.

Writing with his trademarked smugness, Gorsuch presents Epic Systems as a simple application of a legal text. "The parties before us contracted for arbitration", he writes. "They proceeded to specify the rules that would govern their arbitrations, indicating their intention to use individualized rather than class or collective action procedures. And this much the Arbitration Act seems to protect pretty absolutely."

It's the sort of statement someone might write if they'd never read the Federal Arbitration Act--the law at the heart of this case--and had only read the Supreme Court's decisions expanding that act's scope.

[...] Epic Systems means that employers who cheat a single employee out of a great deal of money will probably be held accountable for their actions--though it is worth noting that arbitrators are more likely to favor employers than courts of law, and that they typically award less money to employees when those employees do prevail. The biggest losers under Epic Systems, however, will be the victims of widespread, but small-scale, wage theft.

Via Common Dreams, Public Citizen says Congress Should Overturn Today's U.S. Supreme Court Decision Eroding Workers' Rights

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch, and the courts.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by idiot_king on Wednesday May 23, @12:38AM (2 children)

    by idiot_king (6587) on Wednesday May 23, @12:38AM (#682865)

    Marx and Engels were right! Capitalism: 1, You: You can't afford a Zero, nor are you permitted to have one - we outlawed it with our lobbyists.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 23, @06:31PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 23, @06:31PM (#683200) Journal

      The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

      ― Anatole France

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @07:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @07:10AM (#683453)

        That's what you leftists don't get: You are trying to build your society atop theft; you are trying to place one group above another.

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by bob_super on Wednesday May 23, @12:49AM (3 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday May 23, @12:49AM (#682867)

    Geez, I really wonder if this is going to generate a nice, polite,, and open-minded thread...
    (yes, that's a double Oxford comma, just in case there is too much agreement between posters already)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:58AM (#682911)

      that's a double Oxford comma

      You philistine! I'll bet you're an Emacs user!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:01AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:01AM (#682914)

      I thought that was a single Oxford comma, with one of the list entries being null or negative-space or backspace or similar.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:32PM (#683160)

        It might also have been no Oxford comma, and two empty entries.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tekk on Wednesday May 23, @12:57AM (42 children)

    by tekk (5704) on Wednesday May 23, @12:57AM (#682868)

    Can anyone give a good reason why this contract even had a chance to make it to the supreme court? It seems like the most straightforward case possible: the company wasn't paying me what they owe me. What I "get" out of this contract is that I do work for them, they pay me. If I'm not being paid what was agreed upon then what right does the company have to enforce any other parts of the contract? Seems like any reasonable world would say that the company broke the contract and the employees aren't bound by those terms.

    The only VAGUELY reasonable interpretation I can make (which Gorsuch didn't even bother to address as far as TFS?) is that because it wasn't *found* that the company was stealing wages, the contract isn't broken yet, and they can't get it ruled that wages were stolen without going through arbitration, so they have to go through arbitration in order for the contract to be ruled as broken and therefore be able to go through the court system rather than arbitration.

    ....Of course unconscionable contracts do make the world go round. I wonder how many of those would go poof in an instant if the idea of unconscionability was enforced at all. I feel like the idea that these arbitration clauses should inherently be unconscionable: has there ever been a contract not between two corporations where arbitration was anything more than the company hedging its bets as much as possible that the inevitable future legal problems come out in their favor?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:04AM (34 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:04AM (#682873)

      Can anyone give a good reason why this contract even had a chance to make it to the supreme court?

      Yes. I suggest starting with the 4 justices who dissented with the party-line majority.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 23, @01:34AM (33 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday May 23, @01:34AM (#682879)

        The Court split along party lines.

        What a fucking stupid way to run a country.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:38AM (12 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:38AM (#682880)

          No kidding, got a fucking smart way to fix the problem?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:58AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:58AM (#682885)

            I think random might be better. Randomly pick some people from anyone in the population who wishes to hold the position. Give them a year of training, then they're in office for their term.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:59AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:59AM (#682912)

              It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

              I think just random is safer.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Wednesday May 23, @11:43AM (1 child)

              by stretch611 (6199) on Wednesday May 23, @11:43AM (#683060)

              Randomly pick some people from anyone in the population who wishes to hold the position.

              Even better, pick some people that DON'T want the position.

              • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday June 03, @04:37PM

                by Sulla (5173) on Sunday June 03, @04:37PM (#688052) Journal

                For nearly all political positions we would be better off with someone who doesnt want the job.

                --
                "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
          • (Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 23, @03:00AM (3 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday May 23, @03:00AM (#682913)

            Do what civilized countries do, and not have two state mandated political parties.

            The trouble with that is that the monied interests who run your country like things the way they are, so you might have to start shooting them to enact change.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @05:38PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @05:38PM (#683179)

              oh, like EU member nations who have a gaggle of un-elected thieves running the show? you are sooo sophisticated.

              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 24, @01:35AM (1 child)

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday May 24, @01:35AM (#683353)

                oh, like EU member nations who have a gaggle of un-elected thieves running the show?

                Don't believe everything you read on Breitbart, most of it is propaganda.

                ... you are sooo sophisticated.

                I am not sure why you're assuming I live in the EU, or why you're so angry.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24, @02:12AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 24, @02:12AM (#683365) Journal

                  Don't believe everything you read on Breitbart, most of it is propaganda.

                  Believe it or not, there are European sources of news which also carry stories about the EU. I don't mind chucking rocks at the EU when I can, but it does often involve taking out a couple of glass walls on the way to the target.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 23, @03:12AM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) on Wednesday May 23, @03:12AM (#682919)

            No kidding, got a fucking smart way to fix the problem?

            Fucking smart way to fix the problem: mass boycott - immigrate. (grin)

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 23, @04:11PM (1 child)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 23, @04:11PM (#683156)

              You mean, emigrate?

              Immigrate = coming in
              Emigrate = going out

              I'm not sure how people already inside the country could boycott immigration. Doesn't boycotting something require it to be something you could actually do?

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 23, @09:53PM

                by c0lo (156) on Wednesday May 23, @09:53PM (#683297)

                Thanks

                Fucking language, English. Flammable/inflammable

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:45PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:45PM (#683164)

            What about this: Don't have the judges be selected by the current administration, but have an independent electoral body to determine judges. Disallow any party association for members of that body, making it a federal crime for members or candidates to lie on that.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:10AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:10AM (#682890)

          Best government money can buy.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday May 23, @02:36AM (17 children)

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Wednesday May 23, @02:36AM (#682901)

          thanks, flyover ASSHOLES.

          you are completely ruining our country.

          you did the STIGGINIT thing (sticking it to the libs) but in the process, you fucking burned down the country.

          I hope you are happy. you stuck it to the libs, but you also screwed yourself. R voters, in the majority, are wage-slaves, NOT business owners. I don't know what they think they are doing, but the smarter of us can see that they are conned into voting against their own best interests.

          but hey, JESUS and no abortions. so, there's that.

          *sigh*

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:08AM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:08AM (#682916)

            it's not only about the economy

            it's a lot of people who reject the cultural changes D voters are bringing about in the context of their experience living in an economy that forces two-income homes...

            they are not educated enough to articulate their problems and seek meaningful solutions because education is too expensive

            want D team votes? make education free... confront the banks on student loans...

            i agree on many levels it is insanity that they continue to vote R team...

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:48AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:48AM (#682957)

              ...are not educated...

              This is by design.

              In the 70s, Richard Freeman, education adviser to Governor Ronald Reagan and President Richard Nixon said that, "An educated proletariat is dynamite! We must be selective in who we allow an education." Reagan ended free university education in California shortly after this comment.

              Sorry, JS blocking unfriendly link, but I had trouble finding the full quote. Most references stop at what I quoted above, but I think the rest of the quote modifies it a bit and it would be dishonest not to include a reference with it (when blocking java script, you have to view without css to see the content [firefox -> tap [ALT KEY] -> View -> page style -> no style):

              https://twitter.com/schwarz/status/965972221117325312 [twitter.com]

              most references I could find cut off the quote like this:
              http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hbf/priscult.html [rutgers.edu]

              Sorry crappy sources, but the googles failed me.

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @05:45AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @05:45AM (#682973)

              No shit, well Reagan defunded everything and for some strange reason the Democrats have decided to follow the same route playing to "the middle". The world was trying out a lot of things in the last 100-200 years, today we've now seen what different kinds of systems can be like, we've seen what succeeds and how, but instead of applying logic to government we allow emotion to rule our decisions. Party lines, "key" issues, basically an us vs. them situation.

              We need to realize that the welfare of our country is way more important than the political hot potatoes we seem to be focused on. I guess we just need to figure out our common ground and go from there.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Captival on Wednesday May 23, @06:11AM (1 child)

              by Captival (6866) on Wednesday May 23, @06:11AM (#682980)

              want D team votes? make education free...

              want D team votes? Steal money from successful people and give it to illegals, welfare lifers and terrorists.

              Oh wait, you're already doing that.

              • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:58PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:58PM (#683104)

                i don't believe i said i was a D team voter

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:30AM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:30AM (#682928)

            Well name calling won't help, that is basically what got us here. All the "flyover ASSHOLES" on this site, ok most, are not the Jesus bible thumping types you are referring to. What we suckers on the ground tend to miss is the insane two party bullshit we've been conditioned to. It works wonders to keep us divided, and we already know that a LOT of the Trump supporters are regretting their choice to just fuck the system. The few that are trying to hold on to their bad choice are to be pitied more than anything.

            • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:42AM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:42AM (#682953)

              Bless your heart. I Voted for him and still happy about it!

              Sorry to contradict your claim, however, Trumps approval ratings are going up despite the 90% negative press. But I’m sure the news media is only looking out for the people. ;-)

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:07PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:07PM (#683108)

                well sir i think trump is doing an awful job... he is failing to implement anything remotely progressive...

                at the same time, i still approve of the awful job he is doing... i share your happiness nonetheless... we sent him to be a bull in a china shop knowing that our only option was to burn it all down... it is now starting to catch fire... and i think overeducated liberals who have never worked a day in their life but feel no remorse about stealing from the working class are getting what has been coming to them for a long time

                my family are farmers, construction workers and electrical engineers... practical men and women who do not need government to survive... we have no fear of this rotten system burning to the ground

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:26PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:26PM (#683112)

                  my family are farmers, construction workers and electrical engineers... practical men and women who do not need government to survive... we have no fear of this rotten system burning to the ground

                  Your real masters count on that. They'll still be in charge after it is burnt.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:41PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:41PM (#683142)

                    my family are farmers, construction workers and electrical engineers... practical men and women who do not need government to survive... we have no fear of this rotten system burning to the ground

                    Your real masters count on that. They'll still be in charge after it is burnt.

                    I couldn't say what our "real masters" are counting on, one way or another. But I'm really doubtful that "they" will end up being in charge once it is all burned to the ground. I'm also skeptical of the myth of the self-sufficient man who needs no government to survive. Revolutions are unpredictable. There will be lots and lots of collateral damage when things start lighting on fire. Where we end up is anybody's guess. One thing I am sure of is that there will be plenty of tears all around. Yes, even those self-sufficient men waving their AK-47 penis substitutes will end up wailing and in tears when this is all over. Be careful out there. Life can be rough.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:34PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:34PM (#683201)

                  No fear huh? It blows my mind when people say such clueless shit, it really shows how badly you've been brainwashed. You don't believe you need government because by and large the government has been doing a "good enough" job, but idiots like you see your paycheck and just get SO MAD at how much of a cut goes to the gov.

                  Yes we have a lot of things to fix in our government, but there is more good than bad. Just fixing the election process would have widespread benefits. Burning everything to the ground? Well that is how you get hordes of hungry and angry people grouping together and attacking each other.

                  The "rotten" components of every government are always the people. Since there is no way to fix human nature we therefore need to keep improving our systems of government to shut down avenues of corruption. It will never be finished, but it will be hindered by the useful idiots such as yourself that get brainwashed so easily.

          • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 23, @12:05PM (2 children)

            I've lived in flyover states as well as Canadian flyover provinces

            I was happy there

            But my neighbors all resented the abuse they were subjected to by the liberal urban elite

            Consider the way Hilary insulted trump supporters. The Donald couldn't have gotten more help from a magic lamps genii

            --
            Remember: Soggy Jobs is your one stop shop for fake jobs that don't exist.
            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday May 23, @02:29PM (1 child)

              by TheGratefulNet (659) on Wednesday May 23, @02:29PM (#683114)

              your neighbors were very likely 'programmed' from early childhood to think just ONE way and every sunday (you know what I'm referring to) they get another dosing of 'reinforcement' to continue to think along 'allowed' lines.

              its just that simple. it really is. early mind control so deep you almost can never counter it with logic. that's why almost no R's convert to D. the indoctrination from all directions when you are young is almost ROM-like; can't erase it like eeprom or flash; its pretty much burned in read-only after a certain point. and the R's know this and BANK on it. why do you think the R's are so damned cozy with churches and religion?

              all other conservative hatred toward libs is BS that can be ignored. there is only 1 core reason. 'the libs doing this or that to us' is not at all relevant, but its mostly what the sheep have been programmed to repeat, so they bleet it out endlessly. does not make it true; never was true. but the sunday sheep - they keep us all behind.

              --
              "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 25, @03:54AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 25, @03:54AM (#683878) Journal

                your neighbors were very likely 'programmed' from early childhood to think just ONE way and every sunday (you know what I'm referring to) they get another dosing of 'reinforcement' to continue to think along 'allowed' lines.

                Doesn't take programming. Took clueless politicians who opened their mouths.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 23, @06:40PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 23, @06:40PM (#683205) Journal

            This is what the Republicans do with their stolen seat.

            Just remember this conservatives: All these shady tricks and abuses of power the Republicans are pulling right now will be in the hands of the Democrats pretty soon. And their voters are going to be out for blood so expect them to get used if you don't close them down.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @07:59PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @07:59PM (#683247)

              Just remember this conservatives: All these shady tricks and abuses of power the Republicans are pulling right now will be in the hands of the Democrats pretty soon. And their voters are going to be out for blood so expect them to get used if you don't close them down.

              Indeed. It never ceases to amaze me that neither side has yet learned the truth of "what goes around, comes around". All these awful precedents that are being set today will be used one day by members of the opposing party. Yep, that's right!!! When one party makes an abusive power grab, the other party is virtually guaranteed to take revenge by using it against them just as soon as they can. Remember, you heard it here first.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, @03:40AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, @03:40AM (#683876)

            Hey, those of us in "flyover country" did our best to try to get Sanders elected. But no, you coastholes decided that it had to be Clinton and Trump. So we just picked the least worse of the two.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @10:03AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @10:03AM (#683027)

          It was added explicitly when it became obvious the Federalists as a party were on the wane, and put in place so that their less popular policies could be held onto via the court at least until their minority became so weak that the laws themselves could be repealed.

          End result is the system we have today. It wasn't however how the United States was intended to run, at the beginning, for better or worse.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:00AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:00AM (#682886)

      The decision has nothing to do with stealing wages, even if the original cases did.

      The decision is about the validity of an agreement to use arbitration. Congress (we should blame them) made a law saying that arbitration could be required by contract. Some people want to get out of the contract. This ruling says you have to abide by the contract you agreed to.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:17AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:17AM (#682893)

        According to the linked article, it was the conservative justices legislating from the bench

        Then, the Court got even more aggressive. By its own terms, the Federal Arbitration Act exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Nevertheless, in its 5-4 decision in Circuit City v. Adams, the Supreme Court held that the Act applies to most workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. Thus, forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts were given special protected status, even though the federal law governing these clauses says otherwise.

        The five justices that ruled in favor of CC:

        Kennedy (Reagan)
        Rehnquist (Nixon)
        O'Connor (Reagan)
        Scalia (Reagan)
        Thomas (Bush)

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:38AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:38AM (#682902)

        When your options are to either work or live on the streets, it's hardly voluntary. Not everyone can be self-employed, so employers hold most of the power. You should not be able to sign away your rights to go to actual courts in a contract; such provisions should simply be declared invalid.

        • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @08:53AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @08:53AM (#683011)

          Congress makes laws. Complain to congress.

          You're asking judges to make law. They practically can, though they aren't supposed to. Four liberal judges fell to temptation, thinking the ends justify the means. Never mind that constitutional separation of powers thing, just do whatever it takes.

          I wonder, would you object if the executive branch (president) also took this approach? They too can practically make law, with even more power. They do the enforcement. Maybe the president should just ignore the judicial branch when the ends justify the means?

          The conservative judges ruled in a way that conserves our constitutional form of government. They chose to not abuse the tremendous power that we have entrusted them with.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by bussdriver on Wednesday May 23, @01:12PM (2 children)

            by bussdriver (6876) on Wednesday May 23, @01:12PM (#683092)

            Judges strike down laws and interpret and apply them. They do not make laws, they have power to destroy them word by word. idiot.
            It's a huge power and can look almost similar to writing laws.

            A CORRUPT judge and pick and choose what laws and rights to uphold... they are almost always lawyers so they can argue any position well enough to fool half people (who are below average.)

            HUMAN RIGHTS are not given to you; they are inherent and not enumerated-- see the constitution and founders; they got it.
            Your right to legal due process exists even if the broken government steals that right from you! They can take it but you always have it.

            You can not lose your rights by being blackmaled by small print private contracts. You can't sign yourself into slavery. No law can allow that either without going against human rights... and the constitution. (human rights are greater thanthe constitution)

            This ruling is corrupt judges using narrow scope to avoid their creeping fascism. it's that simple; sorry if I am way ahead of most readers-- instead of thinking I'm a nut and turning off your brain maybe you should consider I'm way ahead of the curve... like the founders were with their crazy ideas back in their day.

            Think about how far we go for your right to a lawyer and due process-- then think about how all of this including the early 90s Bush era start of this arbitration robbing of legal rights from the people. Now you can be screwed out of easily $20,000 because it will cost you that much just to begin a battle with your employer... they can do it to ALL the employees because they can't band together anymore. unions are nearly dead; and not very powerful where they still exist.

            Americans are fucking themselves; which just proves what everybody has been thinking for generations: stupid ignorant selfish Americans.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:54PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:54PM (#683212)

              stupid ignorant selfish Americans

              I live here, and sadly it is incredibly accurate. The success of capitalism was strongly correlated with the technological advancements, and the paradoxical measures of success are lower costs to consumers and greater profits for the owners. The paradox is that lower prices require lower wages which created a feedback loop harming all employees. Capitalism is great for a narrow subset of businesses, but it is time to stop worshiping money and go back to promoting a healthy society.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 25, @04:11AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 25, @04:11AM (#683881) Journal

              They do not make laws

              Roe v. Wade is an excellent counterexample.

              they have power to destroy them word by word

              In other words, you are claiming justices have the power to decide a law by arbitrary degree. Not helping your argument.

              HUMAN RIGHTS are not given to you; they are inherent and not enumerated

              And if you can't exercise them because you are coerced by a greater power, then it doesn't matter.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:01AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:01AM (#682871)

    If the Dems really want to have a blue wave, they'd latch on this and other ways that corps fuck over working joes of all stripes. But since Faulkner's one of their sugar daddies (https://ballotpedia.org/Judith_Faulkner), this won't be mentioned at all in the upcoming midterms. And once again the Dems will wonder why they can't connect with enough voters in spite of how bat shit insane the GOP candidates are.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday May 23, @01:14AM (1 child)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23, @01:14AM (#682877) Homepage Journal

      So true! She's the female George Soros. Dem billionaire that throws her money around. All that money to the VERY CORRUPT DNC. And they don't say it on your page but she donated $5000 to the BADLY FAILED recall campaign against Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Good looking and brilliant guy!

      --
      #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 23, @02:18AM (8 children)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Wednesday May 23, @02:18AM (#682894) Journal

      Solution: Vote 3rd party! I favor the Pirate Party myself, although the Greens would be okay.

      Honestly, what does it take for the 2 major parties to really alienate voters? It's hard to conceive of worse candidates than they nominated in 2016 without reaching for the comics. Quite possibly they could both nominate the most infamous criminals from death row who are still alive, and one of them would still win.

      • (Score: 5, Disagree) by fishybell on Wednesday May 23, @02:43AM (6 children)

        by fishybell (3156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23, @02:43AM (#682905)

        People voting for third parties is the reason we have Trump, and by extension, Gorsuch.

        11 electoral votes [politico.com]
        29 electoral votes [politico.com]
        16 electoral votes [politico.com]
        20 electoral votes [politico.com]
        10 electoral votes [politico.com]

        It's an oversimplification, but we don't have an electoral system that works well with third parties.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday May 23, @03:17AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) on Wednesday May 23, @03:17AM (#682920)

          Not enough Ppeople voting for third parties is the reason we have Trump

          FTFY

        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 23, @12:16PM

          And Jill stein in the general

          The only other democrat I would vote for is Elizabeth warren

          I registered 160 new Greens during the drive to get the Green Party on the California ballot

          --
          Remember: Soggy Jobs is your one stop shop for fake jobs that don't exist.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @05:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @05:46PM (#683182)

          oh fuck you, you dumb bitch.

        • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 24, @02:00AM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 24, @02:00AM (#683360) Homepage Journal

          I love third party voters. I was a third party voter. And I was a third party candidate. In 2000, Jesse Ventura came to me. And begged me to run for President for the Reform Party. So I ran. But the party had big problems. So much fighting. And Jesse left the party. Very very hard to win with all that going on. So I ended my campaign.

          Your links are so interesting. So many states where Crooked Hillary came within 5% of me. And I guess you're thinking, "what if all the third party voters had to pick Crooked Hillary or Donald J. Trump? So many would go for Crooked Hillary, and she could have won!" Maybe, probably, most of the Stein voters would have gone for her. But Johnson got many more votes than Stein. Still not a lot, but for a third party guy in 2016 he did OK. Much much better than Stein or Castle. Let me tell you, most of the Johnson voters and most of the Castle voters would have picked me. And if Gary Johnson had to pick R or D, probably he would have run as a Republican, right? I beat 15 guys and Carly -- the 16 other Republicans that everybody has heard of. And a few more that hardly tried -- low effort folks. Believe me, 17 would not be a problem. No problem at all.

          Lots of folks like your tweet. Lots of likes. And it's great that you looked all that up. But you just found 5 states where I'd win even more beautifully if somehow there were no 3rd parties. But Crooked Hillary still has her fans, they don't want to hear that.

          --
          #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 24, @02:52PM

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday May 24, @02:52PM (#683566) Homepage
          Every single one of those links proves that the problem is with the Electoral College system, and non-proportional representation. With one of the smallest possible changes to the system, namely retaining the EC but having per-state PR, it would have been a Dem plurality victory with ratios [269, 265, 2, 1, 1], for example.
          --
          Life is a precious commodity. A wise investor would get rid of it when it has the highest value.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:44AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:44AM (#682906)

        I favor the Pirate Party myself, although the Greens would be okay.

        I see that global warming is an important concern of yours. [venganza.org]

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday May 23, @01:07AM (4 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23, @01:07AM (#682874) Homepage Journal

    Because he made that very smart dissent in the case of the freezing trucker. The trucker who abandoned his truck -- it wasn't his truck, it was the company's truck -- because he said he was "freezing." And Neil said, you stay with the truck. You put the company first. Like I always, always put America -- and American workers -- First. No matter what. And a very very big part of putting American workers first is saying "no" to workers that are very harmful to companies. Because when workers make a company go under, no more jobs!

    This time Neil was with the majority. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg blew her stack!! She did a dissent, she didn't just do the regular dissent. She read it aloud! She's losing her mind, folks. But she said one thing that made sense, she said it's up to Congress to change the law. Because Congress makes our laws. SC isn't supposed to make the laws, folks! supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-285_q8l1.pdf [supremecourt.gov]

    --
    #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:07AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:07AM (#682888)

      You should write for TV, realDonaldTrump.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @03:10AM (#682918)

        How do you know she doesn't?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:12AM (#682891)

      SC only interprets laws. They don't make them. Which is a sad state of affairs. If congress were worth anything there would be no need to interpret the laws they
      force upon the unsuspecting citizenry.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:20AM (#682984)

      About the "Frozen Trucker". There was a lot of stuff the trucker did not know, nor have any guaranteed assurance of.

      I think ever one of us has dealt with businesstalk. Nothing there to pin down. I can't trust businesses say any more than a used car salesman.

      The company thinks they are in the clear to condemn a driver over an abandoned malfunctioning truck in freezing weather? Had the trucker followed orders, and froze doing so, just what kind of compensation would the company give the trucker's family? How do you price companionship, love, and being a dad?

      I am with the Trucker on this one. I feel self-preservation is an inalienable right, maybe surrenderable only in a military context, and even then, I feel we owe the family of the deceased a helluva lot more than "a debt of gratitude". A lifetime committment to provide for the spouse and getting the kids through college is the absolute least we could do for one who gave his life for our country. Maybe that's the reason they demanded us young kids so much in the '60's for the draft.

      I never understood why the men of the suit could get together and draft a law making it mandatory for kids to report for military service, then tell them as little as copying a song was illegal.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by noneof_theabove on Wednesday May 23, @01:41AM

    by noneof_theabove (6189) on Wednesday May 23, @01:41AM (#682881)

    has been set to 11:30pm December 31, 1983.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:41AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:41AM (#682882)

    Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean the judicial decision is wrong. Perhaps Congress SHOULD "overturn" the decision by changing the law. That doesn't mean that the judges decided the law as it exists incorrectly.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:54AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:54AM (#682884)

      People don't understand the role of the judiciary.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 23, @04:04AM (3 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23, @04:04AM (#682934) Journal

        Including some of the people *on* the judiciary, it seems...

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:36AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:36AM (#682949)

          And, they tend to be on the "left".

        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:00AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:00AM (#682978)

          And, they tend to be on the "left".

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 23, @08:30AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23, @08:30AM (#683007) Journal

            Whoa, boy, someone hasn't been watching since, oh, the 2000 elections or so. Piss off, you brainless nutter.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:06AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:06AM (#682887)

      The law should be overturned because the arbitration act as being used is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the ruling in Bolling v. Sharpe that the due process clause of the 5th amendments means that the feds also must provide equal protect. Arbitration favors the party already benefiting from an imbalance of power. The arbitration act and the cases mentioned in the ThinkProgress article codifies that the powerful are more protected; therefore, it is unconstitutional.

      It can also reasonable be argued that banning class actions suits is a violation of our first amendment rights to peaceably assemble.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:05AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:05AM (#682937)

        WRT agreeing to arbitration as a condition of being hired, AC #682902, above in the (meta)thread, said
        it's hardly voluntary.

        Any parent knows that you let 1 kid cut the remaining bit of cake into 2 pieces and the other kid gets to decide which of the pieces he wants.

        In this case, the employee gets to choose the arbiter.
        There. That wasn't so difficult. Was it?
        Surely, that's in the decision somewhere.
        I mean, those SCOTUS folks are supposed to be the smartest and the best at this stuff. /sarc

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:39AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:39AM (#682951)

          Agreeing to do certain work is usually a condition for being hired; I guess all work is hardly voluntary, by your stupid leftist anti-logic.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @05:31AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @05:31AM (#682969)

            Your Gordian knot of logic reveals your addled brain.
            Inhale once in a while and let some oxygen get to that thing.

            stupid leftist

            The folks at (Socialist) Mondragon can hardly wait to get to work.
            Being your own boss can have that effect.
            Now, -that- is what being Leftist is all about.

            Go ahead and use your limited knowledge base and even more limited intellect to continue thinking about a future where you will always be working for The Man, making him rich from the surplus. [google.com]

            Dumb: Why are you hitting yourself in the head with that hammer?
            Dumber: Because it feels so good when I stop.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 1) by mmarujo on Wednesday May 23, @10:38AM

        by mmarujo (347) on Wednesday May 23, @10:38AM (#683036)

        As an outsider, I see issues such as this with concern.
        Although I'm technically in Europe (Portugal) several "innovations" have a tendency to bleed over. Right now we already have Arbitration, but it's optional. No one can be forced to it. But I fear it's only a matter of time.

        What I don't understand Is how this can be constitutional. There are supposed to be 3 branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. How can a simple contract remove one of them?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:16AM (#682892)

    You've no idea what the function of the Supreme Court is.
    Back to H.S. civics class with you!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 23, @02:21AM (12 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday May 23, @02:21AM (#682896) Homepage

    With this decision, SCOTUS has basically made large businesses completely above the civil laws of the United States. They've replaced the court system with the private system of binding arbitration, a fake court in which there is no jury and the big business in question gets to pick the judge. And guess what the standard they use to pick the judge is.

    If you as an individual make any kind of contract with a large business for any reason from here on out, remember that you have absolutely no recourse to the law if they screw you over. In AT&T v Concepcion [wikipedia.org], in which SCOTUS (with a somewhat different lineup than this SCOTUS) said that businesses can in their contracts with customers ban class action lawsuits and force cases into arbitration, even if the state laws say they can't. Now, with this case, the same rules apply to employees. And these kinds of clauses are also common in contracts with small companies too.

    This puts us solidly on the path towards the megacorp world predicted by the cyberpunk writers. Assuming, of course, no revolutions, environmental catastrophes, or World War III interfere.

    --
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of bad gravy.
    • (Score: 1, Redundant) by c0lo on Wednesday May 23, @03:21AM (11 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Wednesday May 23, @03:21AM (#682922)

      If you as an individual make any kind of contract under US jurisdiction with a large business for any reason from here on out, remember that you have absolutely no recourse to the law if they screw you over.

      FTFY (and thanks God for that)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:48AM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:48AM (#682956)

        Come one, folks. That's what being "free" implies: The need to take responsibility for your own choices.

        Freefolk are incompatible with a Nanny State.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 23, @05:16AM (8 children)

          by c0lo (156) on Wednesday May 23, @05:16AM (#682963)

          That's what being "free" implies: The need to take responsibility for your own choices.

          Agree with the "necessary" but not with "sufficiency"
          Counterexample: a slave can very well take responsibility for own choices, this doesn't make her/him free.

          Freefolk are incompatible with a Nanny State.

          Freefolk is incompatible with "indentured service" as well.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:12AM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:12AM (#682981)
            • Your first point is utterly irrelevant; you're countering someone else's argument, I guess, namely your own straw man.

            • Freefolk are perfectly compatible with indentured servitude; it's how many Europeans got to the North America, for instance.

              I'm pretty sure you're confused about what "indentured servitude" is; it's not synonymous with slavery.

              Also, you might be interested to know that the first legally recognized holder of slaves in what became the U.S. was a black African named "Anthony Johnson"; he was himself a slave in Angola (where rival tribes enslaved each other), was purchased by white people to be an indentured servant, and then became a free man when his contract expired. Next, he got his own indentured servants from Africa, whom he hoodwinked into legally agreeing to become full-fledged slaves (especially given that he culturally viewed slavery as an acceptable practice), which was upheld in court under the authoritarian legal system of the British empire.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 23, @06:51AM (6 children)

              by c0lo (156) on Wednesday May 23, @06:51AM (#682990)

              Your first point is utterly irrelevant; you're countering someone else's argument, I guess, namely your own straw man.

              The same relevance as your remark I replied to. It wasn't a argument running contrary to yours ... see, I agreed with responsibility as a necessity for being free.
              Do you contest however the truthfulness of it?

              Freefolk are perfectly compatible with indentured servitude

              Maybe it is for you, not for me.
              I'm pretty happy to live in a country that guarantees I can go down only to a level of employee but allows me to chose who I'm agreeing to work for and the fact that I can leave that employer at anytime with a prenotice. It's about the level of choice that different law systems allow.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:03PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:03PM (#683150)

                That's what law by contracts is all about: Your obligations can be different from my obligations.

                Get it yet?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @07:04PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @07:04PM (#683216)

                  Everyone here gets it except for you. Your naivety is once again front-and-center. Reality does not conform to your idealism. Powerful groups create situations where people have little to no choice, and history shows that quite often the situations are created through violence. You like to ignore all of history with your idealistic notions, you never have anything to back up your ideas except continuously blathering the same "voluntary interactions get it yet?" garbage.

                  You don't get it. Get it yet?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @07:18AM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @07:18AM (#683455)

                    So, as usual, you have no point, and have been hoist by your own petard.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @03:27PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @03:27PM (#683582)

                      You sound like a crappily programmed not.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 25, @03:24AM (1 child)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 25, @03:24AM (#683873) Journal
                      How do you keep people from being coerced into contracts? That's the huge problem with your viewpoint.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, @06:19PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, @06:19PM (#684121)
                        • What do you really mean by "coerced"? Is the supposedly "coercive" party merely acting within the confines of all the other contracts that govern his interactions with you? In that case, it doesn't matter whether one party dislikes the interaction; it is by definition voluntary—the term "voluntary" does not mean "100% desired"; it means "according to well defined rules to which parties agreed in advance of interaction." It's not fun to lose a match of basketball, but it's a perfectly acceptable outcome for both the players and the thousands of observers.

                        • The lack of a contract is actually a very dangerous state in which to exist; if one party is behaving in a way that is not well defined with respect to another party, then who knows what could happen! Warfare? Part of organizing society is making it clear not just to the interacting parties, but also to observers, what behavior between those parties is "voluntary" by definition. In this way, there emerges a very strong self-correcting enforcement mechanism regarding how that interaction proceeds, and the most robust, humane, innovative, freedom-protecting way in which to achieve such an outcome is law by contracts, not law by legislation.

                        • Again, how is this "problem" better handled by a violently imposed monopoly like Uncle Sam? You'd have to be even more delusional to think He is the right way to go! By default, my "viewpoint" is superior, and so should at least be accepted as the foundation for further discussion on the organization of society.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @01:02PM (#683089)

          As long as the government enforces anti-poaching laws to keep me from feeding myself and property laws to prevent me building shelter anywhere, it has an obligation to also protect me from abuse when seeking legal means to feed and shelter myself and my family. Without either of those options, no one is free.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:24AM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @02:24AM (#682897)

    This leftist bullshit from "OriginalOwner" is getting old. Just go ahead and change the red in the CSS to #FF0000. At least be honest about what SN is becoming. (Wait, I just implied that leftists should be honest, how silly of me...)

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Wednesday May 23, @03:48AM

      by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday May 23, @03:48AM (#682930)

      Да, this is the one товарищ. It's the гулаг for him!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 23, @04:05AM (14 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23, @04:05AM (#682936) Journal

      It's a free country. No one says you have to be here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:45AM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:45AM (#682955)

        Then we're all fucked.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:22AM (12 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @06:22AM (#682985)

          Describe a recent SPECIFIC instance of this "Leftism" to which you refer and how it screwed up things.

          N.B. Here's Leftism: [politicalcompass.org] The collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.

          ...and, BTW, Democrats are nowhere near "Left". [politicalcompass.org]
          So, do attempt to not go off-subject.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 23, @09:02AM (11 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23, @09:02AM (#683016) Journal

            N.B. Here's Leftism: [politicalcompass.org] The collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.

            Once again, let us define words properly. Oxford Dictionary defines leftism as

            The political views or policies of the left.

            And "the left" as

            Relating to a person or group favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views. ‘Left politics’

            While your expressed sentiment above does qualify (on pretty much all the grounds above), it is not the only thing that qualifies so.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @10:32AM (10 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @10:32AM (#683033)

              That's nice but I'm not discussing France in 1789.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:07PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:07PM (#683152)

                So, when your ilk says "It's a living document that should be re-interpreted according to modern language" or "It's just a piece of paper", etc., you are actively engaging in an attempt to overthrow the old order in favor of something radically new.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @07:06PM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @07:06PM (#683217)

                  Bush was the one who said the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Nice evasion / projection, you crazy fucks are soooo far gone.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24, @02:06AM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 24, @02:06AM (#683364) Journal

                    Bush was the one who said the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

                    And that is relevant how? Are you claiming that OriginalOwner is channeling Bush?

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @03:29PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @03:29PM (#683584)

                      Like I said, solo far gone. Can't even keep straight which comment is being replied to.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 25, @03:28AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 25, @03:28AM (#683874) Journal

                        Can't even keep straight which comment is being replied to.

                        I quoted from the comment I replied to. So looks like I succeeded that time. Of course, the lot of you could just get accounts and help the rest of us keep track of who says what.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24, @02:05AM (4 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 24, @02:05AM (#683362) Journal
                Indeed. You're redefining Leftism as some term that no one else accepts. Oxford Dictionary on the other hand defines a term that is relevant today. I wouldn't have a problem if you had said, "This is what I think Leftism should mean." But instead you said

                N.B. Here's Leftism: [politicalcompass.org] The collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.

                as if you were reminding the person of a definition they had forgotten rather than introducing your own pet definition. I grant there might be some hidden, useful purpose to your word mincing, but currently it strikes me as merely dishonest rhetoric.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @03:08AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @03:08AM (#683392)

                  Trying to describe someone's position on the political palate using a 1-dimensional term is stupid (e.g. the lazy nitwits in Lamestream Media).

                  Left and Right describe one's ECONOMIC stance.
                  There's another axis that ascribes a value to how one is regarding CIVIL LIBERTIES (Authoritarian or Libertarian|Anarchist)

                  ...but I wouldn't expect someone with so narrow a mind to grasp any of that.
                  Carry on with your usual 1-dimensional "thinking".

                  -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24, @10:05AM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 24, @10:05AM (#683483) Journal

                    Trying to describe someone's position on the political palate using a 1-dimensional term is stupid (e.g. the lazy nitwits in Lamestream Media).

                    I wasn't trying to describe your political "position". Instead, I was pointing out a pattern of behavior. Most words have standardized meaning in language. It's ok to define words in nonstandard ways as long as you are clear about what you are doing. You weren't. To browbeat someone merely because they don't use or recognize your non-standard definitions is what becomes dishonest.

                    This however doesn't occur in a vacuum. We have two other examples of this dishonesty which I feel obliged to present. The first is the repeated [soylentnews.org] assertion that democracy is a key aspect of his definition of big-S Socialism.

                    The solution is Socialism (Democracy in the Workplace; Democracy Everywhere).

                    And yet you repeatedly defend countries [soylentnews.org] and dictators [soylentnews.org] which/whom don't allow that at all. How is it that so many countries you've defended by name, don't have the thing you claim to desire, democracy in the workplace? That makes me wonder what your actual endgame is here.

                    Finally, there are the derogatory labels and one-sided definitions. For example [soylentnews.org]

                    Capitalism: The means of production is owned by an elite class (The Aristocracy) who do not have to do labor (read: don't have to PRODUCE anything).

                    Looks to me like the argument from semantics fallacy. We agree that X is capitalist. You redefine "C"apitalist to mean something bad. Therefore, X is bad. The problem is that X is not Capitalist by your new definition.

                    And there's the habit of you labeling [soylentnews.org] so much of disagreement as "Reactionary" with a capital "R".

                    The only pattern that I'm seeing is you continually being stupid and spouting Reactionary bullshit.

                    In the real English world, ideological labels are often capitalized, but only when they represent a formal ideology or religion, like Marxism or Sikhism. Who capitalizes a label for mere behavior or mental outlook? We don't say someone is Happy or a Jaywalker as if there was a formal mass movement of people following Happy or Jaywalking. Yet here is OriginalOwner doing so for "Reactionary". Let us also note that the primary tenet of "Reactionaryism" as presented above is disagreement with OriginalOwner on just about anything. It's quite the inclusive movement. We have cookies.

                    So there we have it: peculiar warping of words in the Marxist fashion and then getting sanctimonious when people don't use your pet definitions, defending of real world examples that are extreme opposites from your alleged beliefs, and a long history of dishonest rhetoric based on the above. I wonder who you really are and what you really believe.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @05:09PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24, @05:09PM (#683625)

                      To be fair I've often wondered who YOU are khallow and what you really represent. You seem to have pulled back from most of the right wing craziness and focus solely on "yay capitalism" and other corporate apologetics. You routinely make errors so applying the microscope to originalowner here seems a little hypocritical.

                      This all started from an idiot posting: "It's a free country until Leftism rears its head. Then we're all fucked." The ignorance in that statement is appalling, the veil of "freedom" in the US is more of an Iron Curtain. The reality is that very few get to join the capitalist ownership class, it is just a dream sold to the people to make them continue striving to achieve something which is outside their grasp. Like winning the lottery, freedom in the US requires extreme luck and more often than not well connected social groups.

                      Pot meet kettle, "Marxist fashion" lol why not just wear a "McCarthy 2.0" shirt?

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 25, @03:15AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 25, @03:15AM (#683867) Journal

                        To be fair I've often wondered who YOU are khallow and what you really represent. You seem to have pulled back from most of the right wing craziness and focus solely on "yay capitalism" and other corporate apologetics. You routinely make errors so applying the microscope to originalowner here seems a little hypocritical.

                        I gave five links to examples of the problems I complained of (and I could have found more!), in addition to the original post I replied to. Can you do that?

                        This all started from an idiot posting: "It's a free country until Leftism rears its head. Then we're all fucked." The ignorance in that statement is appalling, the veil of "freedom" in the US is more of an Iron Curtain. The reality is that very few get to join the capitalist ownership class, it is just a dream sold to the people to make them continue striving to achieve something which is outside their grasp. Like winning the lottery, freedom in the US requires extreme luck and more often than not well connected social groups.

                        An obvious question here is how many people really want to join the "capitalist ownership class" in the first place? Sounds to me a bit like how many children want to be an Olympic-class athlete or an astronaut, but don't want to make the sacrifices that would be needed in order to achieve that goal.

                        Like winning the lottery, freedom in the US requires extreme luck and more often than not well connected social groups.

                        One wonders if you ever try. My suspicion is that you don't even understand what "luck" is.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:24AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, @04:24AM (#682947)

      That wasn't anywhere near Leftist, nitwit.

      Had I wanted to fan the flames, I would have amended
        WORKERS, UNITE!
        Drive out the owners and their lackeys and take over the means of production!

      Now, -that- would have been Leftist.

      .
      A non-abusive workplace was what a lot of folks had in USA from FDR's New Deal through LBJ's Great Society.

      So, call me a Reactionary.
      I long for the status quo ante. [google.com]

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 25, @03:18AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 25, @03:18AM (#683869) Journal

        A non-abusive workplace was what a lot of folks had in USA from FDR's New Deal through LBJ's Great Society.

        But you're not willing to support the capitalist systems that made that possible. So it doesn't really matter what you want. You aren't approaching your desires in a way that make them more accessible.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, @09:47PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25, @09:47PM (#684227)

          Swallowing bullshit doesn't make you smart or well informed.
          If the Capitalist that you work for isn't abusive, congratulations.
          You are definitely NOT the norm in the 21st Century.

          Allowing yourself to be hornswoggled by the propaganda of the Capitalist Ownership Class just shows that you are easily duped.
          The fact is that Capitalism increases instability.

          In Capitalism, a tiny number of folks end up with ALL the wealth.
          Concentrated wealth (ever more concentrated over time[1]) is NOT the recipe for a stable society.
          We had this figured out in the span of years I already mentioned.
          ...and in France in 1789, they started cutting off the heads of the selfish abusive jerks.

          [1] I've mentioned many times Thomas Piketty's 696-page analysis of 250 years of Capitalism.
          It doesn't end well.
          Most people end up destitute.
          In this era, there's even a name for those folks who are already there: The Precariat. [google.com]
          People who are desperate do desperate things.

          Capitalism is yet another phase through which we will pass on the way to a better system.
          It's happened before with barter systems, slave economies, and Feudalism.
          There's nothing inherent to Capitalism that makes it immune to replacement.
          In fact, with the present increasing rate of unhappiness and instability in the world, Capitalism is ripe for replacement.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 26, @03:47AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 26, @03:47AM (#684342) Journal
            Not a one of those words changes the underlying problem. You want a fairy tale that doesn't exist in the real world and isn't even all that good compared to the real world.

            If the Capitalist that you work for isn't abusive, congratulations. You are definitely NOT the norm in the 21st Century.

            Most people aren't the "norm".

            Allowing yourself to be hornswoggled by the propaganda of the Capitalist Ownership Class just shows that you are easily duped.

            I guess we're going to ignore that capitalist systems work and talk about nebulous "propaganda" instead. Given that most of what you speak of when you defend your ideas is rather shallow propaganda, it's a remarkable level of projection as well.

            I've mentioned many times Thomas Piketty's 696-page analysis of 250 years of Capitalism. It doesn't end well.

            I'll note two problems with this long but irrelevant analysis. First, capitalism hasn't ended. Instead, it's going stronger than any other economic system has ever done.

            Most people end up destitute.

            And yet, due to capitalism, we are in the midst of the biggest improvement of the human condition ever.

            In this era, there's even a name for those folks who are already there: The Precariat.

            When concrete problems are fixed, we have to move on to the imaginary ones. Let's look at the definition of this term [wikipedia.org]:

            In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau obtained by merging precarious with proletariat.[1] Unlike the proletariat class of industrial workers in the 20th century who lacked their own means of production and hence sold their labour to live, members of the precariat are only partially involved in labour and must undertake extensive "unremunerated activities that are essential if they are to retain access to jobs and to decent earnings". Specifically, it is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence. The emergence of this class has been ascribed to the entrenchment of neoliberal capitalism.

            I'll note that there is probably a lot less of them today, in absolute number than there was in 1970, which is where we start seeing a huge drop in the absolute number of those at extreme levels of poverty (which is really what a precariat is). And notice the introduction of uncertainty with poverty as if that were a new thing. This is a typical reactionary tactic to undermine successful capitalist systems. But also it's only with advanced economic systems that one can thrive as a "precariat". For example, a lot of successful businesses have been created by people who moved out of their comfort zones and into lives of high uncertainty.

            By flaying this term, "precariat", the promoters move from a concrete term that improving well, poverty, to a nebulous term that can be spun to not improve, even though it isn't necessarily desirable to lower society. The primary difference after all between a dynamic society and a rotting society is the level of change that is allowed in the society.

            People who are desperate do desperate things.

            I'm all for making desperate people less desperate. Capitalist systems are very good at that.

(1) 2