the supreme court 'walmart' case could do away with class action lawsuits

[spanone]

just talking about it on m$nbc....

walmart took the case to the supreme court because they thought the class action suit against them was too large...

this is why the supreme court agreed to hear it, NOT because they thought women were being discriminated against.


the supreme court took the case so they could review the 'class action' phenomena ...this according to pete williams on m$nbc

so we could virtually lose that ability to sue major corporations.......


the roberts court is at it again.....

[Joanne98]

1. Yep. That's why that fucker Roberts took it.

[spanone]

2. puts it in a new perspective....i had no idea

[KansDem]

3. But...but...corprations are "people" now!

You mean I can't sue a "people?" :crazy:

Let's see what the Supremes do with this...

[spanone]

5. good luck with that: Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades

WASHINGTON — When Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his colleagues on the Supreme Court left for their summer break at the end of June, they marked a milestone: the Roberts court had just completed its fifth term.

In those five years, the court not only moved to the right but also became the most conservative one in living memory, based on an analysis of four sets of political science data.

And for all the public debate about the confirmation of Elena Kagan or the addition last year of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, there is no reason to think they will make a difference in the court’s ideological balance. Indeed, the data show that only one recent replacement altered its direction, that of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, pulling the court to the right.

There is no similar switch on the horizon. That means that Chief Justice Roberts, 55, is settling in for what is likely to be a very long tenure at the head of a court that seems to be entering a period of stability.

If the Roberts court continues on the course suggested by its first five years, it is likely to allow a greater role for religion in public life, to permit more participation by unions and corporations in elections and to elaborate further on the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Abortion rights are likely to be curtailed, as are affirmative action and protections for people accused of crimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html?pagewanted=print

[savalez]

4. Is there a movement to oust Roberts yet?

If so, where do I sign.

[Hawkowl]

6. Back fire

If the SC curtails class action lawsuits, it will merely multiply individual lawsuits and ultimately cost corporations vastly more money and drag out lawsuits to infinity, not to mention benefiting plaintiffs. In a typical class action lawsuit, the lawyers get fabulously rich, the insurance company for the corporation pays a one time fee to make the plaintiffs go away, and the plaintiffs get pennies on the dollar.

[spanone]

7. not true. individuals would never be able to sue walmart. who could afford it?

pennies on the dollar were welcomed by many after they lost their asses in enron and other scams over the years.

[Hawkowl]

10. What?

Who do you think is conducting the class action lawsuits? They are done on contingency. Individual lawsuits can also be done on contingency. There are plenty of starving lawyers in the good ole USA.

[spanone]

14. sure, the good ol boy lawyer is going up against walmart...dream on

walmart has towers of lawyers waiting on individual lawsuits....they could drag your ass out in court till you don't have a penny or you settle...that's how it works

[Lance_Boyle]

8. Yes. This.

Class Action suits almost never benefit the class, only the class's lawyers. The Class gets a token of some sort ($0.35 check from Expedia, anyone?) and the lawyers rake it in.

[spanone]

9. wrong. i got thousands out of the enron scam.....

in a class action lawsuit

[Hawkowl]

11. Yes, but were you made whole?

In an individual lawsuit, that is the standard. Plus punitive damages in cases of gross negligence or fraud.

[spanone]

15. you think i could have afforded to sue? you are dreaming.

[malaise]

12. LOL

We do think alike. :D

[mstinamotorcity]

13. The problem is

that by doing this it will enable them to be more selective in lawsuits who gets paid. Most people who do not have lawyers benefit from class action lawsuits. When a company dis -enfranchise a large number of people there are those who do not know something wrong was done to them until enough people cry foul. And the all potential plaintiffs are then notified.All parties are notified of the actions of the injured parties. But if you individualize each one it would mean the least of us would never ever get restitution. And it would probably limit an amount for those who do.So all I see from this is more explosions and cave-ins in mines,more oil rig platform explosions, more oil spill disasters,more loss of life and clean air,and extreme damage to the environment for profit. This is the Supreme Court I have come to know. A High Court with no High Values.At least not for me.

[Mimosa]

16. Links, please.

Thanks in advance. I'd like to read about the case.