From our friends at AEI, a wonderful capture of the difference between the Obama/Biden jobs "recovery…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image(s) of the Day: The Obama/Biden Jobs "Recovery" Versus Trump's

From our friends at AEI, a wonderful capture of the difference between the Obama/Biden jobs "recovery," which was the worst in recorded U.S. history (as the graph shows, they promised that unemployment wouldn't surpass 8% under their wasteful spending "stimulus," but instead it exceeded 8% for a record uninterrupted stretch), versus the sharp recovery under President Trump:

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="557"] The Obama/Biden Jobs "Recovery"[/caption]

 

 

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="557"] The Trump Actual Jobs Recovery[/caption]…[more]

September 25, 2020 • 10:07 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Justice Gorsuch Upholds Rule of Law Over Trial Lawyers Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, May 31 2018
Anyone who has endured traditional court litigation can attest to the exhausting, costly and hostile nature of that process, which arbitration reduces.

With each successive 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in which Justice Neil Gorsuch provides the decisive vote, it becomes increasingly difficult for self-satisfied "Never Trump" conservatives and libertarians to rationalize their ostentatious crusade. 

Perhaps at some point the Ana Navarros and George Wills of contemporary punditry can enlighten audiences how a President Hillary Clinton might've withdrawn Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland and selected someone equal to Justice Gorsuch.  Until such time, however, their stubbornness appears more petty than righteous. 

Regardless, Justice Gorsuch offered another jurisprudential gift last week when he provided the pivotal vote to uphold an arbitration agreement between private parties in Epic Systems v. Lewis

First, a word about arbitration as a general matter. 

If someone claims that arbitration deprives aggrieved parties of justice, they are either uninformed or deliberately dishonest. 

Arbitration simply refers to a process for resolving legal disputes outside of the governmental court system.  Just like traditional court litigation, the parties present evidence to a neutral third party, typically an experienced former judge, who renders a verdict. 

As is usually the case with private versus governmental alternatives, arbitration offers the advantage of quicker resolution, lower costs for all litigating parties, and less rigid procedural rules.  Typically, the litigating parties mutually agree upon the arbitrator who will decide the case, which eliminates the possibility of random "jackpot juries" or erratic judges that too often characterize governmental court systems.  Additionally, arbitrators typically exercise greater willingness to mediate the parties toward a more amicable resolution than acrimonious traditional court litigation.  Arbitration can also occur more privately, sparing all parties from potential bad publicity and ensuring greater confidentiality. 

For those reasons, arbitration is typically a superior alternative for plaintiffs and the "little guy" as well as defendants and large institutions.  And employers typically favor it because it reduces the likelihood of litigation costs that can drive them toward bankruptcy defending against even frivolous cases.  Anyone who has endured traditional court litigation can attest to the exhausting, costly and hostile nature of that process, which arbitration reduces. 

It also merits emphasis that arbitration agreements aren't even enforceable if they violate standards of fairness, or deprive either party of acceptable forms of resolution and remedy. 

So who dislikes arbitration?  Trial lawyers.  Trial lawyers leverage the prospect of protracted and costly litigation, as well as jackpot jury verdicts, to drive opposing parties toward costlier settlement to their own benefit. 

Accordingly, trial lawyers and the political left unfairly malign arbitration and seek to deny it as a form of alternative dispute resolution. 

That's precisely what they attempted to do in the Epic Systems case decided this month.  In that case, the employer and employee parties entered into employment contracts specifying individual arbitration of any future legal disputes that might arise. 

Despite signing those agreements, the plaintiffs later sought to commence a class action lawsuit in federal court.  Under their theory, the agreements in question somehow violated the National Labor Relations Act by precluding the possibility of traditional class action litigation. 

Here's the problem with that claim.  Until recently, courts across the nation, as well as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) itself, agreed that such arbitration agreements were perfectly valid and enforceable.  As recently as 2010, in fact, the Obama Administration NLRB General Counsel opined that arbitration of this sort "does not involve consideration of the policies of the National Labor Relations Act." 

But as occurred in so many other Obama Administration bureaucracies, the NLRB arbitrarily and unjustifiably reversed course in 2012.  According to the Obama NLRB's sudden epiphany, the 1935 National Labor Relations Act prohibited arbitration under the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act, despite the fact that courts and executive branch agencies failed for eight long decades to realize it. 

Fortunately, Justice Gorsuch and four other members of the Supreme Court majority rejected that curious claim: 

The NLRA secures to employees rights to organize unions and bargain collectively, but it says nothing about how judges and arbitrators must try legal disputes that leave the workplace and enter the courtroom or arbitral forum.  This Court has never read a right to class actions into the NLRA - and for three-quarters of a century, neither did the National Labor Relations Board.  Far from conflicting, the Arbitration Act and the NLRA have long enjoyed separate spheres of influence, and neither permits this Court to declare the parties' agreements unlawful. 

For good measure, Justice Gorsuch concluded in a way that validates the gratitude of conservatives, libertarians and any other supporter of constitutional fidelity when he wrote, "This Court is not free to substitute its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the people's representatives." 

May he long tip the Court's balance with that sort of jurisprudence. 

Question of the Week   
How many viewers watched the first-ever televised presidential debate?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"It's a shame that Joe Biden couldn't attend Tuesday night's debate.Okay, Biden was in attendance, but during the 90 minutes, it felt like he barely ever finished a complete sentence.It's not clear that President Trump necessarily won the night, in the sense that people who were leaning against voting for him are going to start preferring him. But with motor-mouthed, relentless heckling and constant…[more]
 
 
—Jim Geraghty, National Review Senior Political Correspondent
— Jim Geraghty, National Review Senior Political Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

From which political party are you seeing the most concentrated voter registration efforts in your area?