Comments for

2007-12-16T06:08:28Z

A critical look at the veracity of the claims mentioned in "Mandatory Binding Arbitration Means Alleged Halliburton Rapists Could Go Free" [Overylawyered]

Comment from beartack on 2007-12-17

2007-12-17T07:33:10Z

While the civil liability of Haliburton may be a matter for for arbitration, there is a criminal issue here. There are rights that can not be given up contractually. Further, society has a significant interest here. The woman could not enter into an enforceable contract for voluntary sex, never mind rape.

This whole thing sounds like a PR campaign for the benefit of Haliburton, and a way to temper the embarrassment of the administration.

Comment from sleze69 on 2007-12-16

2007-12-16T21:07:23Z

@sommere: I agree. I actually consider myself quite conservative. While I agree with overlawyered.com's "too much litigation" premise, removing my option to litigate in favor of some large corporation is something I don't agree with.

Comment from sommere on 2007-12-16

2007-12-16T20:53:39Z

I lost all trust in the author of that page when he started suggesting that only the left-wing blog-o-sphere is saying that there is a loophole which leaves contractors under nobody's jurisdiction. That has been mentioned by every media source I use, as well as many members of congress.

It _may_ be that the loophole only applies to contractors not hired by the DOD, but if that's the case it certainly isn't only the left wing bloggers who are confused about it.

Comment from zimzombie on 2007-12-16

2007-12-16T11:19:50Z

"(Note that two elements explicitly designed to arouse the ire and inflame the passions of the left [wing blogosphere]-Halliburton and gang-rape-only came about after Jones switched attorneys.)"

If there's one thing that doesn't arouse the ire and inflame the passions of the right, it's gang rape!

Comment from D.B. Cooper-Nichol on 2007-12-16

2007-12-16T09:16:25Z

Kudos for the link to the Overlawyered post, Ben. Not sure anyone is actually clicking through, but it's a thoughtful counter-point to the arbitration-is-always-horrible view that's heard most around here.

Comment from Galls on 2007-12-16

2007-12-16T09:06:49Z

@LTS!: Yup the problem is this is an instance where free market capitalism has failed. And since no contract anywhere that deals with citizens does not include arbitration.

Comment from LTS! on 2007-12-16

2007-12-16T09:03:25Z

While I agree with you, the problem here is that nothing is "forcing" anyone to bypass anything. A contract has terms, disagree with the terms, don't enter into the contract. It's really that simple. People will argue all kinds of angles and all they sum up to be are excuses as to why it's so hard to not enter into the contract. She had an employment contract, she agreed to it.

Should these things happen? Of course not. But.. as you see.. they do.

Comment from timmus on 2007-12-16

2007-12-16T07:42:28Z

Well, when you get right down to it, arbitration is inherently designed to protect the party offering the contract. Anything that forces one to bypass a court of law should be illegal.