Some time ago a reader shamed me into attempting to highlight some good news now and then, given my propensity to highlight the not so good to terrible news that regularly afflicts us. I tried, but eventually my resolve sort of fizzled out. I try to resist it, but I am an old white guy, so I’m far better at complaining than anything else.
However, if only briefly, I am herewith highlighting some good news:
The nation’s consumer watchdog is unveiling a proposed rule on Thursday that would restore customers’ rights to bring class-action lawsuits against financial firms, giving Americans major new protections and delivering a serious blow to Wall Street that could cost the industry billions of dollars.
The proposed rule, which would apply to bank accounts, credit cards and other types of consumer loans, seems almost certain to take effect, since it does not require congressional approval.
In effect, the move by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — the biggest that the agency has made since its inception in 2010 — will unravel a set of audacious legal maneuvers by corporate America that has prevented customers from using the court system to challenge potentially deceitful banking practices.
This move toward private justice systems, a feature of the TPP by the way, has allowed the corporations to complete the takeover of the three branches of the American system of government, through the simple expedient of imposing contractual terms denying their customers the right to a fair tribunal. Rather laughably, the folks who engineered this push to arbitration on behalf of the banks are claiming that this rule would hurt consumers, a claim which the Times article rather effectively refutes.
This is yet more proof of how important the choice of the next Supreme Court justice will be. I can easily see a 5 member court majority setting this rule aside. The present court, when the loathsome Scalia was alive, distorted existing law to uphold these arbitration provisions. There’s no reason to believe it would have done anything other than find a way to nullify this rule. Even if corporate shill Hillary gets in, she’s unlikely to appoint anyone that bad. Nor is she likely to appoint someone to the board to reverse Cordray’s action. A Trump appointee, no doubt, would reverse this and screw us in numerous other ways, all, we would be told, to benefit consumers. Trump, after all, made and is making a living off of defrauding people, so he and his minions would jump at the chance to make fraud even more legal than it already is. So, it matters who’s president as well, even between the choices that will be foisted on us.
Anyway, this truly is good news.
Post a Comment