[camgunz]

If you read her dissent through to the end, she rightly points out that if the FAA were to hold over the NLRA then it would also hold over the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly not what Congress intended. See also her (well-cited) argument about specific vs. general legislation, as well the fact that the NLRA was written and enacted after the FAA. In fact, if you're on the side of "SCOTUS... starting to uplold the laws as they are on the books", then you're on Ginsburg's side here. Gorsuch & co. are really reaching.

The ruling today essentially says that if the FAA is ever in conflict with any other piece of legislation that it holds supreme. This is literally unprecedented.

[kevin_b_er]

Arbitration trumps ALL your rights. When arbitration is mentioned, it superceeds all your rights.

The conservatives love it because it means their greed rules over all other laws. It is federal which means it superceeds states. As long as they are in enough power, you are ruled by their greed.

[notyourday]

No, the law did not address the new development. To address these developments, a new law should be passed.

[howard941]

One new development here is that the FAA apparently trumps everything not expressly exempt from it. Used to be that later laws preempt conflicting prior laws. The FAA should be called the Class Action Preemption Act because of what it effectively turned into.

[kevin_b_er]

It is ROLRA, the Rule Of Law Preemption Act. Once the FAA is invoked, all other laws fall by the wayside. You have no rights, as they are waived. The arbiter is not required to follow any other laws.[1] Manifest disregard for the law is insufficient to halt or reverse arbitration. You are no longer under the rule of law, but under corporate rule.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_Street_Associates,_L.L.C.....

[notyourday]

Yes, that's how the laws work. Future laws narrow/refine previous ones unless they are found to be unconstitutional on specific grounds or spell out exceptions.

We have been running with courts writing laws for years -- banana republics had less judicial interference into purview of legislative branch/executive branch. Now the rubber band is snapping the other way and those who have been happy at letting courts to write laws because it was their men/women on courts are now freaking out. Just wait until Kennedy retires in August and Trump gets another originalist there -- outsource unpopular legislation to courts group is in for a world of hurt for decades.

Edit: Not liking that water is wet does not change that the water is wet. Downvotes are not going to change this SCOTUS decision or other coming SCOTUS decision. Neither would they change a retirement of a swing vote and neither would they change that it will happen when Trump is in office and republicans control the Senate.

[s73v3r_]

Sure. But what happened today is that the SCOTUS legislated from the bench.