principles developed in caselaw (an implication which is supported by the arbitrator’s citation to authority in support of his use of equity) rather than any personal view of right and wrong. Second, the arbitration agreement undoubtedly gave the arbitrator authority to invoke equity, as it provided him with the power to award any relief which a court could award. The arbitrator, therefore, acted — or at least arguably acted— within the scope of his authority when he noted that equity supports the certification of an opt-out class. Finally, even if Respondents have — at the very most — raised an arguable issue as to whether the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his powers, the Court is without authority to vacate the arbitrator’s decision. Am. Postal Workers Union, 204 F.3d at 527 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court cannot say that the
holding that for immunity an official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred  holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority holding that congress may impose its will on the states as long as it is acting within the powers granted by the constitution holding that as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority a court should not vacate his decision holding that as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within his scope of authority that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision