Earlier quoted context omitted.
Law says X. New condition Y shows up. The law does not magically become X' where X' accommodates for Y. If you want X', then pass the law that changes X to X'. Edit: I'm editing this as NH blocked me from replying: > Sure, we agree on that. But Law X will interact with condition Y somehow, so the question is what property of X is preserved when addressing Y. This is a pretty fundamental debate between constitutional…
"Law says X. New condition Y shows up. The law does not magically become X' where X' accommodates for Y." But that's exactly what the majority decision here is saying! "Since class actions didn't exist back when the NLRA was enacted, we need to accommodate the NLRA for class actions" The court literally made up what they felt should happen!
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts
#181FAA predates NLRA and NLRA did not define that it gets to override FAA.