Quote:

---

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case that could have far-reaching implications for millions of consumers and employees. The case, AT&T Mobility Services vs. Concepcion, has garnered relatively little media attention but could result in an effective ban on class action lawsuits, potentially eliminating a powerful legal tool often used by consumers against businesses accused of fraudulent practices.

... Class action suits typically involve small amounts of money which, when taken as a whole, can constitute substantial damages. Consumer protection advocates argue that without the threat of class action lawsuits, corporations could systematically nickel and dime unknowing consumers through unfair or deceptive practices. Individual consumers, they argue, are not likely to go through the hassle of going to court to settle a dispute involving $50 or $100.

At issue in this case is whether the Federal Arbitration Act trumps state precedent and preempts state contract law. ... The Conceptions argued, and the Ninth Circuit Court agreed, that AT&T’s class action [contractual] wavier is unenforceable under California’s Discover Bank rule. [which] finds a class action wavier unconscionable if 1) it is found in a consumer contract of adhesion; 2) it involves disputes that predictably involve small amounts of damages; and 3) “it is alleged that the party with the superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money.”

---

Quote:

---

... In this case, Court is being asked by two parties to consider two different questions. Which question the Court chooses to rule on will determine how far reaching the decision could become.

AT&T has asked the Court to decide the case narrowly on the question of whether the FAA preempts state law only “when class actions are unnecessary for the effective vindication of consumer and employee rights.” ... Pro-business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed briefs asking the Court to decide the case on broader grounds. The Chamber is asking the Court to determine whether class action waivers can “ever” be unconscionable. ...A decision on broad grounds against the respondents could effectively ban class action lawsuits under United States law.

Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court has shown a willingness to hear cases on broad grounds and to overturn precedent, most notably in its recent decision in the high profile case, Citizen’s United. ... Some consumer advocacy groups are concerned about the reasoning behind the Court’s decision to take the case. ... According to the Alliance for Justice, the Court has already overstepped its role in granting certiorari, “proactively reaching out to decide a case it did not need to hear” where there is “no circuit split on the question presented.” The First, Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts have all agreed that state precedent preempts the Federal Arbitration Act, and 19 states have case law to the same effect.

---

Quote:

---

It sounds absurd, but the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in a case in which AT&T is claiming it has a right not to be embarrassed by the disclosure of documents that could show that it overcharged for its services. But here's what's even more absurd: given the procorporate tilt of the current court, it is likely that AT&T will prevail.

FCC v. AT&T is a fight over documents relating to the telecom giant's work for the New London, Conn., school system. AT&T was working on a Federal Communications Commission program that provided telecommunications equipment and services to the schools. In August 2004, AT&T discovered that it had overcharged the FCC for the work, owned up to it and worked out a settlement with the FCC.

But that didn't end the matter. In 2005, a trade organization representing some of AT&T's competitors filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents from the investigation - documents AT&T wanted to remain secret. Congress passed FOIA in 1966 with the intention of making governmental operations more transparent. The law created a strong presumption that government documents requested by a member of the public would be turned over.

There are some exceptions built into FOIA, and AT&T wanted the FCC to invoke one of them: Section 7(c), which bars release of law-enforcement information when it "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The documents involved law-enforcement information since they were collected as part of the FCC's formal investigation of the overbilling, but the FCC nevertheless reasonably concluded that Section 7(c) did not apply to AT&T's documents because humans have personal privacy and corporations do not. When the FCC was preparing to release the documents, AT&T appealed. It argued that the courts have long held that corporations are "persons" under the law, and that it could therefore have "personal privacy."

Then in 2009 the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed, saying that the company was eligible for the personal-privacy exemption. To justify its disturbing decision, the court made the bizarre claim that "corporations, like human beings, face public embarrassment, harassment and stigma."

In reaching this ruling, the court made the mistake of focusing on the word person rather than the phrase personal privacy. It is true that corporations are "persons" under the law for some purposes, such as being able to own property or enter into contracts. (But not for others: 18-year-old corporations are not allowed to vote and they cannot be drafted.) It does not follow, though, that corporations have personal privacy.... Until now, courts have interpreted Section 7(c) as applying to intimate personal details like health status, alcohol use, marital status and the legitimacy of children - information that could prove embarrassing to the individuals involved. Put simply, corporations cannot be embarrassed because they do not have emotions. They are nonhuman entities created to make money. They can be successful if they turn a profit, or fail if they show a loss - but they cannot feel good or bad about either outcome.

---

Quote:

---

Sadly, Genachowski’s network neutrality proposal is fraught with loopholes. The proposal fails to restore FCC authority over ISPs, which all but ensures court challenges to any attempt at enforcing network neutrality. The proposal does offer nominal protections against “paid prioritization,” but critics decry these protections as weak. They point out that the proposal exempts unspecified “specialized services” from network neutrality provisions, an exception which could lead to the creation of a tiered internet. What’s more, the proposed rules don’t extend to wireless broadband networks, so that as more and more internet services go wireless, the scope of network neutrality would be sharply reduced.

Strong protection of an open internet will require a number of key changes to Genachowski’s proposed new rules. One change would be to restore FCC authority over the internet by reclassifying the internet as a “Title II” service, which would put the FCC on firmer ground for asserting its authority. A better proposal would also eliminate the “specialized services” loophole (why shouldn’t everyone benefit from network neutrality?), disallow paid prioritization (paid discrimination in other spheres of life is illegal), and extend its rules to both hardline and wireless internet services.

---

Quote:

---

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
-John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
One of the things that peeps don't get about Obama's healthcare "reform" is not that it's "socialism" but that it is fascism. The Supreme Court, which the Bushes had a large hand in forming, has always been pro-corporate, and never minded stepping on state and individual rights as long as it meant forwarding business interests.

---