If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   How would it feel to have the Supreme Court decide 9-0 that you're a jackass?   (usatoday.com) divider line 42
    More: Followup, Supreme Court, frequent flyer programs, Paul Clement, consumer law, rewards programs, airlines, Northwest Airlines  
•       •       •

7432 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Apr 2014 at 7:35 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-03 06:04:22 PM
Wow that's gotta sting! One the one hand I can see being ticked off if they were needlessly jerking you around but this guy seems to have been a congenital whiner. As Alito wrote if there is a REAL problem its covered by the FAA.
 
2014-04-03 06:38:34 PM
It would seem the guy is a professional asshole anyway, so he's probably enjoying the validation.
 
2014-04-03 06:55:23 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: It would seem the guy is a professional asshole anyway, so he's probably enjoying the validation.


Wonder what his Fark handle is?
 
2014-04-03 06:58:13 PM
The opinion is available here.  It's a business-friendly decision that favors industry over consumers, like the Carnival Cruise case in which the Court held small-print dispute resolution terms on the cruise ticket were enforceable.  The contracts the Court is protecting are not negotiable by the consumer, so allowing people to sue based on an ill-defined implied covenant of good faith would have slightly empowered the consumer.
 
2014-04-03 07:04:30 PM
Sorta mystified how a case like this made it to SCOTUS. Seems like relatively small potatoes.
 
2014-04-03 07:32:16 PM

fusillade762: Sorta mystified how a case like this made it to SCOTUS. Seems like relatively small potatoes.


When two or more of the federal appellate courts have reached different conclusions on similar issues involving a federal law, SCOTUS may take the case to resolve the circuit split.  I didn't look far enough to note if that happened here.
 
2014-04-03 07:37:25 PM
Northwest, which has since become part of Delta Air Lines, dumped Ginsberg in June 2008 after he complained 24 times in eight months.

There's a crying baby on every flight.
 
2014-04-03 07:44:00 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Benevolent Misanthrope: It would seem the guy is a professional asshole anyway, so he's probably enjoying the validation.

Wonder what his Fark handle is?


Seeing that he's jewish....
 
2014-04-03 07:45:45 PM
No different. But then, I'm a jackass so I suppose that would be the proper reaction.
 
2014-04-03 07:49:50 PM
"Today's decision gives airlines greater freedom to act in bad faith in performing their contracts with consumers, to the detriment of the millions of consumers," Rosenbaum said.

Yep, and its really too bad you and your asshole client pushed it to this, asshole.
 
2014-04-03 08:08:09 PM
Airlines v. Consumerist-level chucklfark. Whoever wins, we lose.
 
2014-04-03 08:18:07 PM
When a business is this insistent on the right to deal with you in bad faith, being a jackass is a membership requirement.
 
2014-04-03 08:21:52 PM
Airlines said they can't tailor their programs to a patchwork of consumer laws in 50 states.

Funny, I wasn't aware that unwillingness to follow a law makes you immune from having to actually follow the law.
 
2014-04-03 08:22:52 PM
I think I found a picture of the plaintiff

img.fark.net

/what?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-03 08:38:24 PM
I didn't like the decision. Recently the Supreme Court said you couldn't draw a clear line between (agency interpreting a statute) and (agency interpreting its jurisdiction). I don't think you can draw a clear line between (violating the good faith and fair dealing principle of contract law) and (violating some other part of contract law that might vary from state to state).
 
2014-04-03 09:06:55 PM
how would it feel to be the clerk/desk agent (who likely took a previous raft of shiat from said customer) who got to tell him to screw off?

that had to have been a high-point in a typically crappy-day job.

ZAZ: I didn't like the decision. Recently the Supreme Court said you couldn't draw a clear line between (agency interpreting a statute) and (agency interpreting its jurisdiction). I don't think you can draw a clear line between (violating the good faith and fair dealing principle of contract law) and (violating some other part of contract law that might vary from state to state).


I realize you pay more attention than I so, please realize this is actually a question and not just the garden variety snark (well, it's that too)

But...are you actually under any impression that any verdicts from this court will even be *internally consistent*, much less consistent or logical compared to their other decisions?

I kinda disabused myself of that notion quite awhile ago - just curious from a lawtalkingtype if, so to speak, you still believe in that particular Tooth Fairy.
 
2014-04-03 09:08:15 PM
Let's see. The SCOTUS decides in favor of rich political donors, airlines.

Does anyone detect a pattern?

/Personally, the dude sounds like a whiner as Northwest wasn't as bad as Continental.
 
2014-04-03 09:59:36 PM

4tehsnowflakes: The opinion is available here.  It's a business-friendly decision that favors industry over consumers, like the Carnival Cruise case in which the Court held small-print dispute resolution terms on the cruise ticket were enforceable.  The contracts the Court is protecting are not negotiable by the consumer, so allowing people to sue based on an ill-defined implied covenant of good faith would have slightly empowered the consumer.


I know these kinds of rulings can sometimes bite legitimately injured parties, but not every bad thing that happens to someone means they get a free pony.
 
2014-04-03 10:00:48 PM

4tehsnowflakes: fusillade762: Sorta mystified how a case like this made it to SCOTUS. Seems like relatively small potatoes.

When two or more of the federal appellate courts have reached different conclusions on similar issues involving a federal law, SCOTUS may take the case to resolve the circuit split.  I didn't look far enough to note if that happened here.


The Supreme Court just had to take another opportunity to tell the 9th Circuit how wrong they are. It isn't a real Supreme Court term unless the 9th Circuit gets overturned a few times.
 
2014-04-03 10:07:50 PM

ZAZ: I didn't like the decision. Recently the Supreme Court said you couldn't draw a clear line between (agency interpreting a statute) and (agency interpreting its jurisdiction). I don't think you can draw a clear line between (violating the good faith and fair dealing principle of contract law) and (violating some other part of contract law that might vary from state to state).


ZAZ haz over 2800 greens and top-25 honors.  So we are in the virtual presence of something unusual.

As to the politics of this decision, think of the human Centipod on South Park.  Even people who in theory could understand every word of the contract and negotiate for better terms can't do so because the company would just decline to negotiate, saying its transaction costs would be too high -- so we all sign off on stuff we might have preferred not to.  Judges have a few tools to find ways to circumvent contract terms that are unfair.  Contract of adhesion and implied good faith are two of the big ones.  But fundamentally the courts are in the business of enforcing contracts.
 
2014-04-03 10:11:49 PM
A stingy Jew?  It feels like I'm taking crazy pills.
 
2014-04-03 10:12:29 PM
Great_Milenko:

I know these kinds of rulings can sometimes bite legitimately injured parties, but not every bad thing that happens to someone means they get a free pony.

Easy there, big fella.  I did not say the decision was wrong, just placing it in context
 
2014-04-03 11:17:40 PM
The case involved Rabbi Binyomin Ginsberg, who was ousted from Northwest Airlines' WorldPerks loyalty program for complaining too often about getting bumped from flights and repeatedly seeking compensation the airline considered unfair.

Yep.
 
2014-04-03 11:20:05 PM

AirForceVet: Let's see. The SCOTUS decides in favor of rich political donors, airlines.

Does anyone detect a pattern?

/Personally, the dude sounds like a whiner as Northwest wasn't as bad as Continental.


Can you show me a single receipt for any off the justices to have received campaign contributions from any airline? Heck, how about from any corporation? Know what? How about any donor of any sort at any level? Considering that none of them have run for office at any level at any time, don't spend too much time looking.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-03 11:36:01 PM
heap

Since it was a unanimous decision, I hold it to higher standards than a routine we-hate-X/we-love-Y 5 to 4 split.  If we saw a 5-4 ruling that the moon is made of green cheese and the next year a 5-4 ruling that the moon landings were not faked, that would be a lesser conflict.
 
2014-04-04 12:33:12 AM
But the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act law prevents regulation dealing with the "price, route or service of an air carrier."

Who was president back in '78....
 
2014-04-04 01:23:32 AM

meanmutton: AirForceVet: Let's see. The SCOTUS decides in favor of rich political donors, airlines.

Does anyone detect a pattern?

/Personally, the dude sounds like a whiner as Northwest wasn't as bad as Continental.

Can you show me a single receipt for any off the justices to have received campaign contributions from any airline? Heck, how about from any corporation? Know what? How about any donor of any sort at any level? Considering that none of them have run for office at any level at any time, don't spend too much time looking.



What the fark does that have to do with anything?
 
2014-04-04 02:23:22 AM
"Airlines said they can't tailor their programs to a patchwork of consumer laws in 50 states. "


No, they are two busy working the two tier "class system" in airports to worry about patchwork consumer laws.
 
2014-04-04 02:38:34 AM
In my case, it would be 7-0. Scalia and Alito would have to recuse themselves. They know why.

/it's because they're naughty little boys who need Mistress to punish them
 
2014-04-04 03:19:59 AM

2wolves: But the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act law prevents regulation dealing with the "price, route or service of an air carrier."

Who was president back in '78....


The Airline Deregulation Act was the best thing to ever happen to consumers in regards to air travel.
 
2014-04-04 06:11:08 AM
The supreme court siding in favor of a giant corporation? Limiting consumer rights? Why I never!
 
2014-04-04 08:33:04 AM

Dinobot: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Benevolent Misanthrope: It would seem the guy is a professional asshole anyway, so he's probably enjoying the validation.

Wonder what his Fark handle is?

Seeing that he's jewish....


Clearly this must be a case of antisemitism, especially given the number of Catholics on the court.
 
2014-04-04 08:39:03 AM

decide 9-0 that you're a jackass?


In Saskatchewan, only one vote is required.

images.zap2it.com
 
2014-04-04 08:58:50 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: It would seem the guy is a professional asshole anyway, so he's probably enjoying the validation.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-04 09:19:41 AM
It's almost as if stereotypes exist for a reason...
 
2014-04-04 09:29:05 AM
Wow. I was not expecting this kind of antisemitism to pop up here.
 
2014-04-04 09:41:31 AM

Warlordtrooper: Airlines said they can't tailor their programs to a patchwork of consumer laws in 50 states.

Funny, I wasn't aware that unwillingness to follow a law makes you immune from having to actually follow the law.


Came here to say this.

Sorry, I was looking for the law place. If this ain't it can I get directions?
 
2014-04-04 10:18:01 AM

Warlordtrooper: Airlines said they can't tailor their programs to a patchwork of consumer laws in 50 states.

Funny, I wasn't aware that unwillingness to follow a law makes you immune from having to actually follow the law.


To everyone wondering about the part where the airlines said they can't tailor their programs to the states' consumer laws, that has to do with federal pre-emption in the realm of interstate commerce.  Pursuant to the Deregulation law the court cited, which is based on the federal government's power over interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, any state laws or regulations that would have an effect on a carrier's prices or rates are pre-empted. Having to abide by 50 states consumer protection laws means the airlines would have to take on more potential liability,therefore there would be an effect on prices. That's the context behind the tailoring their programs comment, and why the state consumer protection laws do not apply to the business you do with an airline.
 
2014-04-04 11:13:55 AM

PrincessZorra: Warlordtrooper: Airlines said they can't tailor their programs to a patchwork of consumer laws in 50 states.

Funny, I wasn't aware that unwillingness to follow a law makes you immune from having to actually follow the law.

To everyone wondering about the part where the airlines said they can't tailor their programs to the states' consumer laws, that has to do with federal pre-emption in the realm of interstate commerce.  Pursuant to the Deregulation law the court cited, which is based on the federal government's power over interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, any state laws or regulations that would have an effect on a carrier's prices or rates are pre-empted. Having to abide by 50 states consumer protection laws means the airlines would have to take on more potential liability,therefore there would be an effect on prices. That's the context behind the tailoring their programs comment, and why the state consumer protection laws do not apply to the business you do with an airline.


excellent explanation of the interstate commerce aspect.  I also love your handle, I figured out the "Zorra" part
 
2014-04-04 12:53:30 PM
I side with the majority on this one
 
2014-04-04 02:15:22 PM
If I baited any anti-Semites into the thread by posting the incredibly racist but hilarious Jew Dude doll, I apologise.  I may have imagined that I have special privileges to make that joke by an accident of birth.

//What did the Jewish child molester say to the third grader?
"Hey kid, wanna buy some candy?"
 
2014-04-05 05:52:04 AM

Rincewind53: Wow. I was not expecting this kind of antisemitism to pop up here.


Just don't make fun of blacks or gays here and you're good to go.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report