To Sue or Not to Sue—That is the Question

jb
Well, John Boehner is at it again. This time he is going to sue the President of the United States because of the President’s one year extension of a healthcare mandate. Boehner and “his crowd” believe that the president is exerting too much power—on his own. On the one hand Boehner and “his crowd” set as their primary mission to make President Obama a one term president. This crowd has no desire to work with the President on anything—nothing. They want to see him fail—after all Big Butt Rush Limbaugh already set this as the Republican agenda—to make sure that this President is tarnished as often as possible. The same crowd that wants to sue the President for using to too executive power has also called him ineffective and lacking leadership. No matter what the President does, Boehner’s crowd has a hole dug for the President fall into. So now they want to sue the President of the United States.

I find it strange indeed that Boehner wants to file a lawsuit against President Obama but the average consumer now cannot file a lawsuit against a whole bunch of corporations. Corporations have now begun to shield themselves from lawsuits by individuals. They have done it by “secretly” taking away an individual’s right to sue by putting it in the “terms of service” fine print of a wide range of consumer transactions. What is happening is that somewhere in the fine print when you accept a credit card, or even enter a nursing home, or face some type of discrimination, the right to sue has been snatched away in favor of mandatory binding arbitration, meaning, you cannot go into court and “sue the bastards.”

The Supreme Court has played a key role in taking away an individual’s right to sue a corporation. A series of decisions starting in 1983 have sided with companies that wanted to enforce binding arbitration over courtroom litigation in a wide array of cases. The Supreme Court has ruled that being illiterate or blind is not a defense against binding arbitration. And the floodgates have opened wide as more and more corporations now insert “binding arbitration” clauses in their terms of service contracts and even employment contracts. Many of these contracts are written in tiny legalese that few people read.

The “right to sue” has been characterized as causing too much “frivolous litigation” clogging the courts and binding arbitration is seen as a way to “unclog the courts.” So why is Boehner clogging a federal court with a frivolous lawsuit against the President of the United States? How can the right to sue be systematically taken from the average consumer as causing too much “frivolous” litigation, yet Boehner can proceed, “by any means necessary,” to take down the President? How is it that the same bunch of conservatives such as Boehner, have defended corporations against lawsuits by consumers, yet they are proceeding full steam ahead with suing President Obama? Why is it that the conservative packed U. S. Supreme Court has continually whittled away an individual’s right to sue a corporation, for their wrongs and misconduct, especially, class action law suits, yet Boehner and “his crowd” can sue the President? Whose rights are more important—a consumer fighting these increasingly large and behemoth corporations, or some joker bringing a frivolous lawsuit just to take the President down a peg?

Copyright 2014 – L. Arthalia Cravin. All rights Reserved. No part of this commentary may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the author.

Share Button
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Wednesday Wisdom