One of the most abusive corporate practices embraced by the Supreme Court in recent decades is the use of “forced arbitration” clauses to kick injured parties out of court.  As the Wonk Room previously explained:

The scam works like this:  beginning in the 1980s, the Supreme Court rewrote federal law to endorse a practice known as “forced arbitration.”  Under this practice, companies ranging from nursing homes to cell phone companies to employers can refuse to do business with anyone who doesn’t give up their right to sue or be sued in a regular court presided over by a neutral judge.  Instead, consumers and employees are shunted into a privatized, corporate-run judicial system, which overwhelming favors corporate parties.

Until today, however, ordinary Americans had one safety valve they could invoke to escape from some of the most abusive arbitration clauses–they could challenge the arbitration agreement itself under various legal grounds sufficient to void any contract.  They might claim, for example, that they were defrauded into signing the arbiration agreement, or that the agreement is so one-sided in favor of the corporate party that it should be invalidated.  Such claims rarely worked, but they at least provided a small check on this abusive practice, and they at least allowed the claim to be considered by a real judge in a real court.

Today, in a 5-4 decision in Rent-a-Center v. Jackson, the Supreme Court largely closed this escape valve.  In a difficult-to-follow opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court holds that, with very rare exceptions, a party claiming that they were tricked, trapped or forced into an arbitration clause is no longer allowed to challenge that clause in court.  It’s as if BP said that all suits brought by victims of the Gulf oil disaster must present their complaints to a BP executive, and only that BP executive can decide whether or not they are entitled to damages.

Without access to a neutral and unbiased judge, victims of arbitration clauses are trapped into corporate-owned courts that virtually never rule in ordinary Americans’ favor.  The practical effect of today’s decision is that millions of Americans will be left with absolutely no recourse whatsoever when they are harassed at work, scammed by their credit card company, or even raped by co-workers.

Earlier this year, after being criticized for comparing gay marriage to incest and drug addiction, former Arkansas governor and current Fox News personality Mike Huckabee claimed that his statements were taken out of context and explained that he does not personally dislike gay people. “I have great respect for you,” Huckabee told Rosie O’Donnell in April. “I respect your choices. And I respect the choices that people make that aren’t my choices.”

Huckabee struck a similar note during a recent profile in the New Yorker. “I’ve had people who worked for me who are homosexuals,” he said. “And I don’t walk around thinking, Oh, I pity them so much. I accept them as who they are! It’s not like somehow their sin is so much worse than mine.”

But in that same piece, Huckabee also suggested that he is repulsed by gay relationships:

“I do believe that God created male and female and intended for marriage to be the relationship of the two opposite sexes,” Huckabee said in a recent New Yorker profile. “Male and female are biologically compatible to have a relationship. We can get into the ick factor, but the fact is two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn’t work the same.” [...]

Huckabee does deviate from Party orthodoxy on some issues. But what makes him even less predictable as a politician is his sense of humor. At times, he seems unable to resist the force of his own funniness. I joked with him once that I would write about his (fictitious) affair with Nancy Pelosi. He e-mailed back, “The only thing worse than a torrid affair with sweet, sweet Nancy would be a torrid affair with Helen Thomas. If those were my only options, I’d probably be FOR same-sex marriage!”

In his conversation with O’Donnell, however, Huckabee stressed that his opinions were informed by the bible. “I’m an Evangelical Christian, so I have a strong biblical world view, and that’s where I come. It’s not a matter of me having any kind of animosity towards anybody or any group and what people do individually, is to me, their business,” he said. “I’m not going to judge you or judge anybody else because I know there are so many loving people who are in same-sex relationships and they have adopted children and they love those kids. I’m not going to judge them. I’m simply not going there.”

Yesterday, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated that the Pentagon’s study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will examine how not whether to repeal the policy and cautioned that President Obama is willing to veto the Defense Authorization bill, despite the repeal provision:

GATES: Our review is about how to implement this and what are the obstacles, what are the problems, what are the challenges, what are the issues. How do we mitigate the negative consequences if we identify negative consequences? What are the questions we have to address? Those are the things this review is all about. And I feel it’s very important for the military to have the opportunity to weigh in, to register their views on these issues, and to give us help on how to do this smart should the legislation pass. [...]

WALLACE: So you think that they veto the bill even with repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell?”

GATES: I think so.

Watch it:

With McCain’s veto threat now gone, the only remaining obstacle to securing the process of repeal is the continued funding for the C-17 cargo plane and the F-35 second engine right, which are part of the House legislation, and potential poison-pill amendments during floor debate in the Senate. Actual repeal of the policy won’t occur until sometime next year and even that seems fraught with uncertainty. As Lez Get Real points out, “while Gates is telling the media circuit they are looking at the ‘how‘ of repeal, that is not matching up with all of his statements, nor the theme of the survey itself. Reliable sources indicate the tenor of the survey deals with the impact of repeal on the rank and file rather than how to best implement repeal.”

Moreover, if “the President has made his decision,” why did Gates initially resist repeal legislation that accommodated the study? After all, if his goal is to minimize uncertainty or anxiety within the ranks, why wouldn’t he support the most certain and least cumbersome legislative maneuver — one that triggers repeal only after the Pentagon has examined the policy. Insisting on finishing a study that lays a groundwork for repealing the ban and then rolling the dice in January with a new Congress less supportive of ending the ban, would have put the policy, the military, and its service members in a state of flux.

Anyway, what’s done is done, but I would venture that Gates’ triangulation on the issue would do more to confuse the troops about openly gay members than any “swift” repeal. The Senate is expected to take-up the defense measure, with the delayed repeal provision, in the coming weeks and hopes to pass the bill before leaving for the July 4th recess.