|
While you were away, the Supreme Court did it again |
|
|
|
|
Written by Byron Williams
|
|
Friday, 06 May 2011 |
 As many news agencies led this week with President Barack Obama releasing his birth certificate, not only was it, as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick defined as a "new low in American politics," it took oxygen away from more important stories.
On the same day the news cycle was preoccupied with the president's birth certificate and Donald Trump was professing his faux victory to anyone who would listen, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled once again on the side of corporations.
In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that corporation had the same First Amendment rights as individuals. Last week, the ideologically divided court ruled that consumers may not pursue class-action arbitration complaints.
Specific issues in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion involved cell phone contracts that require customers to press claims through arbitration rather than lawsuits, mandating only the individual and not groups can bring forth such actions.
The response to the court's decision was as predictable as the justices who cast their votes
AT&T said in a statement that its arbitration program is "free, fair, easy to use and consumer friendly."
Deepak Gupta, who argued the case on behalf of cell phone customers Vincent and Liza Concepcion, said the ruling was a "crushing blow to American consumers and employees." And that "it leaves consumers powerless against arbitration agreements buried in fine print.”
I know this doesn't rank with settling an issue that has already been settled -- like Obama's place of birth -- but there is something extremely unsettling when our highest court believes that corporations can systematically engage in unethical practices, while burying it deep in the layers of fine print and consumers can only challenge it one case at a time.
The ruling opens a Pandora's box that if one takes a job, purchases a cell phone or open a bank account, they open themselves to the possibility of relinquishing any rights to hold companies accountable for fraud or other abuse.
The California law, where this case originated, does not allow bans on class-action lawsuits or arbitration. However, the majority of ideologically strict-constructionist justices, who normally side with the states, made a rare exception. Doesn't this have a Bush v. Gore ring to it?
There is a small ray of hope in that Congress could simply change the law. But the factious climate that currently exists on Capitol Hill makes this option highly unlikely.
This isn't a liberal or conservative issue; the high court handed down a ruling that potentially places the majority of Americans in peril.
Where is the individual liberty contingent? What about those concerned about the overreach of the federal government, surely they must be concerned about this ruling?
This ruling runs counter to anything articulated by those (like the justices who voted in favor) that subscribe to original intent.
But, ultimately, is this not a commentary on we the people? Major issues confront the nation and we, as my pastor, the Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Smith, often opines, prefer "to major in the minor."
What does it say that Trump with the bluster of P.T. Barnum and a hairstyle that rivals Don King is leading the news coverage on an issue that does not change a single person's life?
As serious issues beckon our attention, the opiate of nonsense dominates our public discourse. Conspiracy theories trump the difficult decisions that everyone knows await.
Moreover, the media, of which I am part, remains an unwitting facilitator to this absurdity.
When historians look back on the Roberts court, it may very well conclude this was the "gilded age for the 21st century corporation," where First Amendment rights were granted on par with the individual and any skulduggery they wish to embed in their contracts with consumers could only be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Meanwhile, we can rest in the confidence of knowing that nearly 26 months into the Obama administration that is confronting a tenuous economy, two official wars, rising gas prices, homes underwater, and the chipping away of individual rights in lieu of corporations, we saw the president's birth certificate.
Don't you feel better already?
 |
|
 Post a Comment.
We want to hear what you think!
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality -- Dante
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
