Two SCOTUS Cases Raise Questions And Pose Dangers

The Supreme Court has made some interesting moves over the last couple of weeks and it is hard to know whether they signal danger or not. But the default position with the Roberts' Court should always be to expect the worst.

Last week, the Court decided to hear three cases that involve the rights of workers to engage in a class action against workplace violations. Right now, employers use a class action waiver in their contracts with employees that does not allow the employees to form a group to sue for the company for workplace violations but instead forced them into individual arbitration. This effectively neuters most workplace complaints as the arbitration process is effectively rigged for the employer and the individual worker has to devote an inordinate amount of time and sometimes money to actually go to arbitration. This class action waiver and forced arbitration is what has allowed rampant wage theft, such as that in the fast-food business, to go on for years. The CFPB has tried to eliminate forced arbitration in the financial services industry, a technique that allowed the massive fraud at Wells Fargo to go on for than a decade. These cases involve a new rule by the NLRB that would allow workers to band together for "mutual aid and protection" in a legal action against an employer. Is it possible that one conservative member of the court is troubled by the abuse of workers? I would find that hard to believe. If anything, the Roberts Court believes in a free hand for business to essentially do what it wants. I sense danger with this case and this case alone would call for Democrats to delay Trump's SCOTUS nominee as long as possible, at least until this session ends.

Earlier this month, the Court put a temporary stay a lower court's ruling that North Carolina redraw its illegally racially gerrymandered state's legislative districts and have a special election in 2017. According to various court rulings, every election since 2012 in North Carolina has been conducted under an illegal gerrymander of one kind or another. The special election was a way of rectifying this situation before the 2018 election. Naturally, North Carolina appealed the lower court's ruling claiming the special election was "an extraordinary incursion on state sovereignty". Yes, nothing should be able to get in the way of keeping minority voters from exercising the franchise. The interesting thing about this ruling is that the traditional 4-4 split in the Court would have let the lower court's ruling stand and the special elections would have gone forward. That means that at least one member of the traditional liberal bloc had to vote to put a stay on the lower court's ruling. The full Court will still hear the case but it is apparent that the special election may not be held because of the time constraints caused by this delay. The question is why a liberal member of the court would put a stay on this order and allow North Carolinian's to be effectively disenfranchised for another year. Is it possible that a conservative member of the Court is having second thoughts about gutting the Voting Rights Act? Again, I would find that hard to believe. But, if that is true, then a liberal vote to hear the full case would be what the Court would need to reverse course. On the other hand, if the liberal bloc on the Court has given up on fighting radical and illegal gerrymandering, then we are truly doomed.