One Two, Buckle My Shoe

If the court decisions keep on at their current rate, one could imagine a time when the average citizen will be forced by law to tie the shoelaces of the super rich whenever they demand it -- codified by a current interpretation of the constitution that seems to have less and less to do with individual rights. The other decision is the more important, but first the latest NFL Lockout stay (Yahoo News), that sides with the owners against the players who are not even close to "slaves," as some argue, but who certainly are being exploited not only in financial, but physical terms as well. The players argument is clear and persuasive: their average career lifespan is 3.5 years and, given salary minimums, that can be as little as $1.2 million for a player whose career ends after those 3 year. The players are the ones who are bringing in the fans and risking their current and future health, and do deserve a slightly larger take of the profits and better benefits. More telling is the number of players who end up committing crimes, in jail or bankrupt within ten years out of the league. The owners are making huge amounts of money and their argument is simply that they want a bigger piece of the oversized pie (Legal Arguments). And a continued lockout sanctioned by the federal courts might just let them have their cake and eat it too (which is a phrase I've always found silly, because why would one want a cake that they couldn't eat?)

The other decision, from the supreme court, is substantially more troubling (New York Times).It sided with AT&T Mobility against a couple arguing that they had the right to file a class action suit with others even though they had signed a standard "arbitration first" contract, after a $30 fee was added to their bill. The decision appears to end the ability of consumers to file class action suits, as companies can now simply use standards form contracts to forbid consumers claiming fraud from banding together and instead force them to do so alone. While many class action suits seem silly, as they only provide marginal settlements to individual consumers, they can be important in challenging and punishing corporations for their illegal or unsavory practices. Without this power, consumers are essentially left at the whim of the many small (and larger) ways in which corporations take our money or practice fraud. The decision continues the court majority's approval of forced arbitration over litigation, an absurd legal standard that undermines the rights of consumers and helps protect corporations from being penalized for their actions. The whole system of forced arbitration is absurd, with corporations demanding that consumers and workers go through an arbitration process that often benefits the company. And it reminds one of the continuing costs of allowing 8 years of Bush and co -- the financial crisis, ridiculous expenditures on Iraq and Afghanistan that have helped create a growing debt being used as an excuse to cut social services and a supreme court that seems intent on turning the clock back on American jurisprudence while consistently supporting the interests of corporations over citizens. 

This occurs as two other states consider limiting employees collective bargaining rights: Massachusetts and  Florida (following successful efforts in Ohio and Wisconsin). The financial crisis arguably caused by the free market, appears to be the key legitimator of continuing to give the fictitious, fickle market control over our lives.