Justice Ginsburg schools her conservative colleagues on the meaning of the word 'consent'
Source: Think Progress
Gaslighting is not a valid method of statutory interpretation.
Ian Millhiser
Apr 24, 2019, 12:47 pm
The Supreme Court — or, at least, its Republican majority — has an unhealthy obsession with forced arbitration. And, in a decision handed down on Wednesday, the court fed that obsession at the expense of workers throughout the country.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the case in question, Lamps Plus v. Varela, relies on a definition of the word “consent” so bizarre, it verges on gaslighting. In a rare move, every single Democratic justice wrote a dissent — including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose dissent directly confronts Roberts’ weak understanding of the concept of consent.
Forced arbitration agreements require workers or consumers to sign away their right to sue a company in a real court as a condition of doing business with that company. A customer who refuses to sign would be denied a credit card, a cell phone, or even the ability to check their loved one into a nursing home. And, as the court’s Republican majority held in Epic Systems v. Lewis, a worker can be forced to sign under pain of firing.
Victims of forced arbitration may still bring claims against the company that forced them into the agreement, but these claims must be brought before private arbitrators who are far more favorable to corporate parties than judges. As one study shows, employees are much less likely to prevail before an arbitrator than before a court, and they generally receive far less money when they do prevail.
https://thinkprogress.org/justice-ginsburg-republican-colleagues-consent-39721c42421e/
This is why we need to take back the Senate and the keep the House and remove the criminal enterprise in the white house......................................
Thank you Justice Ginsburg.....................Thank you..........
= new reply since forum marked as read
reading the words "every single Democratic judge" ... the courts (judicial system) are supposed to be free of party politics. 
