SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and III
You do realize there are three parts of the case and that they didn't just skip part II as some sort of stylistic choice, right?
Part I was meaningless, it was a laying out of the facts of the case that would have been identical regardless of the final decision. It's like saying someone agreed to the Index at the front of a book.
Part III was regarding the backpay part of the case. It was a minor technicality and was not really all that important given the disagreement over Part II.
Part II was the meat of the argument. The cons argued that the women had no case against WalMart (regardless of their class status) and also argued that their claim of clss status was not valid and that there was no way they could qualify to be a class. The libs on the other hand argued that their case had merit and that they could get class certification by relying on a different part of the class-action laws. How you think those two views are the same boggles my mind.
I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the minority agrees with the majority on one point or another, in order for the case to be unanimous they have to agree on all the important points not just some of them. The cons sent these women home empty handed, the libs would have sent them back to the lower court that already certified their class to try again, those are two very different things.
no subject
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and III
You do realize there are three parts of the case and that they didn't just skip part II as some sort of stylistic choice, right?
Part I was meaningless, it was a laying out of the facts of the case that would have been identical regardless of the final decision. It's like saying someone agreed to the Index at the front of a book.
Part III was regarding the backpay part of the case. It was a minor technicality and was not really all that important given the disagreement over Part II.
Part II was the meat of the argument. The cons argued that the women had no case against WalMart (regardless of their class status) and also argued that their claim of clss status was not valid and that there was no way they could qualify to be a class. The libs on the other hand argued that their case had merit and that they could get class certification by relying on a different part of the class-action laws. How you think those two views are the same boggles my mind.
I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the minority agrees with the majority on one point or another, in order for the case to be unanimous they have to agree on all the important points not just some of them. The cons sent these women home empty handed, the libs would have sent them back to the lower court that already certified their class to try again, those are two very different things.