Quote:
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
. . . on the meaning of the word ‘consent’
"The notion that consent achieved through coercion is no consent at all should not be a difficult concept for five of the most powerful lawyers in the country to understand. And yet this notion escapes all five of the Supreme Court’s Republicans." |
^^^ Your OP juxtaposition makes it look like the quote is from Ginsburg's dissenting opinion. It's not.
She would never refer to her fellow SCOTUS justices as "Republicans" or "Democrats". Only an imbecile writing for a left-wing whacko ragsheet called "Think Progress" would do that!
Here is another lulu of a stupid quote from your same author:
"If workers 'consent' to forced arbitration, it is the consent of jus primae noctis. It is the consent of a conquered nation that, having seen its armies vanquished, agrees to be ruled by a foreign king. It is the consent of a man who agrees to give up his wallet at gunpoint."
This follows an exhibit showing the obscene amounts tort lawyers have managed to extort, on average, from the wallets of companies by dragging them into court and pointing a legal gun at their heads. Agreeing to binding arbitration means the greedy tort lawyers won't be able to extort as much money from those company wallets.
Nobody is taking money out of employees' wallets. Only a fucking lying jackass shill for the tort bar would even dare to suggest that when it's the other way around!
Does the OP feel "coerced" into consenting to the Terms of Service each time he logs onto eccie? Why not make a federal case out of that?
Nobody I know takes a job intending to sue their employer. If you don't like binding arbitration, then don't take the job. If you want to enrich greedy, rapacious, vulturous tort lawyers who contibute nothing to the nation's productive economy, then go to law school and study how to become an ambulance-chasing thief.
