That's unfortunate. I can't figure out how you got it so wrong, then.
The hot air coming from your nonsense statements could power many large cities, you may very well be the solution to our energy crisis.
Which means that all 9 agreed it shouldn't have been certified. Unanimously. Thanks!
Look, I realize you either didn't read the whole decision or didn't understand it (you're not a lawyer and it's pretty clear anything that disagrees with your ideology goes in one ear and out the other) but I'm getting sick of trying to explain this to you. You're an adult, presumably a literate adult, it shouldn't be this hard. Let me try one more time.
They all agreed that the rule cited by the plaintiffs wasn't the proper rule for certification of their case. That is the only thing they agreed on and, ultimately, it does not impact the plaintiff's situation in the least. The conservatives on the Court, pleasing their corporate masters, declared that the class could not be certified in any case and that the plaintiff's chances of getting remedy for their suffering was nil. The liberals, in their dissent (I don't know how you think there'd be a dissent if they all agreed) stated that the plaintiffs most likely had a case and that the case should properly go back to the lower courts to determine whether they could qualify under a different rule. The positions of the liberals and conservatives are like night and day. There is no similarity between the conservative opinion (screw these women, Walmart can do whatever they want) and the liberal opinion (the case should go back to the lower court, which already certified the class, to be certified under a different rule of class action law).
You still haven't told me what you think the purpose of the dissent was if this was a unanimous decision.
You mean read, looked for the facts, and came away with the facts. An understandable error.
I don't think that word means what you think it does...
I know you think these things that rattle around in your brain are "facts", but they're not. The fact is, if this was a unanimous decision, there wouldn't have been a dissenting opinion. That's a fact.
You seem to think there was some deep disagreement on the merits of the case - that's, unfortunately for you, incredibly, deeply wrong.
There was a deep disagreement on the case. The conservatives, in the majority opinion, stated that the plaintiffs had no recourse to a class action and furthermore that their case was preposterous and without merit. The liberals in their dissent stated that while the plaintiffs had chosen the wrong rule to hang their case on, they nonetheless likely had a case against WalMart and could very well achieve class status by simply choosing a different rule for their argument. That sounds like a pretty deep disagreement.
Now, I'm done arguing this with you. It's clear that your "brain" will not allow you to acknowledge anything that disagrees with your very wrong world view. I'm not your teacher nor am I your therapist, I have no obligation to keep trying to spoon feed you something that you should be able to figure out on your own. I always regret having these discussion with you, because you're immune to truth and facts, I guess there's probably a lesson in there for me but I just can't help trying to correct your absurd statements.
no subject
The hot air coming from your nonsense statements could power many large cities, you may very well be the solution to our energy crisis.
Which means that all 9 agreed it shouldn't have been certified. Unanimously. Thanks!
Look, I realize you either didn't read the whole decision or didn't understand it (you're not a lawyer and it's pretty clear anything that disagrees with your ideology goes in one ear and out the other) but I'm getting sick of trying to explain this to you. You're an adult, presumably a literate adult, it shouldn't be this hard. Let me try one more time.
They all agreed that the rule cited by the plaintiffs wasn't the proper rule for certification of their case. That is the only thing they agreed on and, ultimately, it does not impact the plaintiff's situation in the least. The conservatives on the Court, pleasing their corporate masters, declared that the class could not be certified in any case and that the plaintiff's chances of getting remedy for their suffering was nil. The liberals, in their dissent (I don't know how you think there'd be a dissent if they all agreed) stated that the plaintiffs most likely had a case and that the case should properly go back to the lower courts to determine whether they could qualify under a different rule. The positions of the liberals and conservatives are like night and day. There is no similarity between the conservative opinion (screw these women, Walmart can do whatever they want) and the liberal opinion (the case should go back to the lower court, which already certified the class, to be certified under a different rule of class action law).
You still haven't told me what you think the purpose of the dissent was if this was a unanimous decision.
You mean read, looked for the facts, and came away with the facts. An understandable error.
I don't think that word means what you think it does...
I know you think these things that rattle around in your brain are "facts", but they're not. The fact is, if this was a unanimous decision, there wouldn't have been a dissenting opinion. That's a fact.
You seem to think there was some deep disagreement on the merits of the case - that's, unfortunately for you, incredibly, deeply wrong.
There was a deep disagreement on the case. The conservatives, in the majority opinion, stated that the plaintiffs had no recourse to a class action and furthermore that their case was preposterous and without merit. The liberals in their dissent stated that while the plaintiffs had chosen the wrong rule to hang their case on, they nonetheless likely had a case against WalMart and could very well achieve class status by simply choosing a different rule for their argument. That sounds like a pretty deep disagreement.
Now, I'm done arguing this with you. It's clear that your "brain" will not allow you to acknowledge anything that disagrees with your very wrong world view. I'm not your teacher nor am I your therapist, I have no obligation to keep trying to spoon feed you something that you should be able to figure out on your own. I always regret having these discussion with you, because you're immune to truth and facts, I guess there's probably a lesson in there for me but I just can't help trying to correct your absurd statements.