6 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices are over 65… so why do they rule against Seniors so often?
Six of the Supreme Court justices are over age 65. So why does the Court keep issuing out pro-business ruling after pro-business ruling that not only rolls back the rights of Seniors, but is also just plain bad law? I guess it's true--wisdom doesn't always come with age.
Ah well. At least you should check out Harper Tobin's piece, Senior Rights and Wrongs, in the Nation. It's a really smart piece that outlines a few key anti-Senior decisions. Tobin argues that: "the common thread connecting [the rulings] is lack of attention to the goals of Congress and the real problems facing older Americans."
Among those issues Tobin highlights is that of binding mandatory arbitration in contracts with nursing homes. Tobin also cites back to the story of David Kurth, which I blogged about here. Tobin advocates for the proposed legislative fix to this abusive practice of including pre-dispute, binding, mandatory arbitration clauses in the fine print of nursing home contracts, so that nursing homes can avoid the courts when staff sexually or otherwise assault residents, or neglect them until they get very ill or even die.
I don't mind hammering this point in--advocacy pieces like this are critical to countering all the gibberish about arbitration being good for consumers, cheap for consumers, or about consumer choice. Read it! And then pick a civil justice issue and blog about it or write an op ed! (Here's more on that)