Three Supreme Court cases you need to be aware of
- Thread starter heckler73
- Start date
Joe Blows Trees
Well-Known Member
Another way to keep more money in house. Less lawsuits, less lawyer fees.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
That is true, but is it worth the loss of consumer protections?
It's like cutting off someone's head to treat acne.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
It will promote plan B, violence.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
WHOA! That's a bit of a leap.
WHAT?!?!!? I can't sue Company X for making a bad hip implant which has affected 1000s of people? FUCK IT! TIME TO RIOT AND KILL INDISCRIMINATELY!
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
WHOA! That's a bit of a leap.
WHAT?!?!!? I can't sue Company X for making a bad hip implant which has affected 1000s of people? FUCK IT! TIME TO RIOT AND KILL INDISCRIMINATELY!
No, no, no,....Guy sold me a lemon, now all the cars on his lot suck..........
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Oh...but still, you are one voice, and all the others who follow (or came before) will have no knowledge of this. This definitely puts the asymmetric information advantage back into the hands of vendors, without (great) concern for consequences.
Although, with the internet, I guess info can move more efficiently in this day relative to, say, 50 years ago. So maybe it won't be a complete disaster?
Well, I guess you Americans will find out soon enough, eh?
Joe Blows Trees
Well-Known Member
It's not worth the loss, but IMHO, corporations have only cared about their bottom lines since day one, although without us, they'll fail. It's only getting worse as time goes on. They'll never care about us cause they believe we need them. If consumers stop spending at there stores, it would hit the big boys in the pocket which is the only way to get them to change.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
This isn't really about stores, though. It's about mega-corps, like pharmaceutical giants for example, being able to throw out whatever wonder-product they've cooked up, without concern about mass repercussions in the event their product kills or injures.
Each case would have to be filed individually, making it nearly impossible to go after the big pockets. It completely distorts the "playing field," as it were.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
One thing that was mentioned I wouldve presumed was present already, the requirement that all members of a class can prove they suffered damages.
Is that really an impractical requirement?
The rest is crony-Capitalism at its finest tho.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You shouldn't be surprised that this is happening. It's what happens when competition is eliminated or constrained, by design.
It wouldn't happen in a truly free market. Why? Absent the monopoly of government provided "justice" there would be competing arbitration methods. Also absent a monopolistic government there would not even be a corporate construct which is really just a scam to transfer wealth to cronies.
Ironic that a corporation is designed to shield individuals too. If only individuals are allowed to sue, wouldn't it make sense that the defendants are examined as individuals too, rather than a corporate wall of diversion?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I wish your ideas would work but theyre fundamentally flawed.
Sorry dude, can't happen.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Could you describe which flaws exist and how the present paradigm addresses those flaws you claim exist?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Agreed. It's another sign of the growing power of corporate fascism in America.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
heckler73
Well-Known Member
That is just dumb.
We've gone over this before, Coca-Cola's court would be different from GE's court, etc. Your "free-justice" stuff is an absolute clusterfuck of perpetual litigation with ZERO justice for any person.
It wouldn't do any good because you refuse to actually go over any details.