Yeah, I think the point is that you while you can’t sign away your right to avail yourself of the courts, by signing an agreement to use arbitration, your first use of the courts, if you want to use the courts, is going to have to be to contest the agreement itself. The grounds on which you can do that are limited.
I’m pretty sure presidential platforms, including Clinton’s, are usually full of things that are beyond the powers of the president, the idea being that they will work with the necessary branches of government to get the job done. Scrolling down her platform, I think it’s fair to say she’d need cooperation from congress on most of it.
It strikes me that these arbitration requirements are a lot like the sharia courts that conservatives are so lathered up about. They (like rabbinical beth din courts) are extra-judicial legal systems that people voluntarily agree to let adjudicate civil disputes.
In order to get those anti-sharia laws past the 1st amendment, they have to make the language general enough so as not to single out a particular religion. So that leads to me wonder if any of those laws were generalized enough that they could be used to challenge binding arbitration clauses.
