Much has been written about what the U. S. Supreme Court has done to enforce arbitration agreements. In case after case, it has interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act expansively, holding that, amongrnother things,rn1. Congress invoked the full preemptive power of the Commerce Clause (Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 272, 277 (1995));rn2. there is a "national policy favoring arbitration" (Mo-rnses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)); 3. the act preempts inconsistent state laws (Vaden v. Discover Bank, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1271 (2009), and 4. the act separates the arbitration clause from the surrounding contract for purposes of deciding who decides arbi-trability (Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., 388 U.S. 395,420-421 (1967)).
展开▼
机译：关于美国最高法院为执行仲裁协议所做的工作已有很多报道。在逐案的情况下，它对《联邦仲裁法》进行了广泛的解释，其中包括rn1。国会援引《商务条款》的全部先发权（Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos。v.Dobson，513 U.S. 265，272，277（1995））; rn2。有“赞成仲裁的国家政策”（Mo-rnses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp。诉Mercury Constr。Corp.，460 U.S. 1，24（1983））； 3.该法案优先于不一致的州法律（Vaden诉Discover Bank，129 S.Ct. 1262，1271（2009），以及4.该法案将仲裁条款与周围的合同分开，以决定谁决定可仲裁性（ Prima Paint Corp.诉Flood＆Conklin Manufacturing Co.，388 US 395,420-421（1967））。
展开▼
