Question

The Constitution appears to grant us our day in court dispute criminal charges or pursue civil litigation if we are wronged. In theory
our founding fathers were trying to give equal access to the judicial system to all but in some respects it has turned our judicial system
into a quagmire. Sometimes it may take up to ten years to get a civil trial date in Federal District Court and by the time appeals are heard
it is possible that the original plaintiffs and defendants are long dead.

The use of alternate dispute resolution including arbitration and mediation has increased as a means to help reduce the backlog of court cases. Under some contracts the parties waive their right to a trial in lieu of binding arbitration with no right to appeal. Is this streamlined justice, justice denied, appropriate in our
fast-pace society or a means of "big business" taking advantage of the little guy? What is your opinion and try to support it with recent
instances of court rulings or articles.

Answer 1

The route of arbitration is usually taken by parties to resolve issues of disputes in a faster manner and without going for the expensive and lengthy litigation process. In the current fast-paced world, this is a necessity and provides the much-needed framework to ensure justice without violation of rights and quick resolution of disputes. By following the arbitration process, most disputes are settled in a timely manner without incurring expensive legal costs for all parties involved and also takes the burden off the courts to a certain extent.

In fact the recent verdict by the US Supreme Court in the case Kindred Nursing Centers, LP v Clark (2017), wherein the court decided that the state of Kentucky's Supreme court's rule of clear statement violated the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act and thus stuck down the law of the state which disfavored arbitration. Thus the US Supreme Court realizes the important place of arbitration and wants to promote it as a mechanism for settling disputes.