460
Thomas, J., dissenting
to arbitrate . . . according to [its] terms." Mastrobuono, supra, at 54 (internal quotation marks omitted). I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
I continue to believe that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings in state courts. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 285-297 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting). See also Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 689 (1996) (Thomas, J., dissenting). For that reason, the FAA cannot be a ground for pre-empting a state court's interpretation of a private arbitration agreement. Accordingly, I would leave undisturbed the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Page: Index Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Last modified: October 4, 2007