I apologise that I find it hard to tell the difference between you asking a serious question and you being an insufferable jackass, then.
I'm sorry if you find intellectually rigorous discussions difficult, and resent me for pointing out your mistakes, but I've never been an "insufferable jackass". Every question I ask is meant in all seriousness.
She didn't. She merely disagreed about the scope of the case in regards to Rule 23.
Actually, she did. She spent almost a whole page talking about how the plaintiffs could make a case for certification under the other rule and furthermore suggested that the case should have been remanded to the lower court to explore certification under that other rule.
We disagree, then, on the "meat." But at least you're now starting to come around that there was a unanimous ruling in here. We'll get you there soon!
If I ever found myself "coming around" to your diseased way of thinking I'd put a bullet in my brain.
In no way was I agreeing with you. In much the same way that two people in the midst of war, fighting on opposite sides, might agree that one of them should die; the libs and the cons agreed on minor details. Unfortunately, that's all the agreed on. As I said previously, in order for a case to be unanimous the people actually have to agree on all the important points. They did not agree on the merits of the case, the ability of the plaintiffs to obtain certification or the method by which they might obtain certification (based on a reading of the decision, they couldn't even really agree on the rules for certification in the first place).
no subject
I'm sorry if you find intellectually rigorous discussions difficult, and resent me for pointing out your mistakes, but I've never been an "insufferable jackass". Every question I ask is meant in all seriousness.
She didn't. She merely disagreed about the scope of the case in regards to Rule 23.
Actually, she did. She spent almost a whole page talking about how the plaintiffs could make a case for certification under the other rule and furthermore suggested that the case should have been remanded to the lower court to explore certification under that other rule.
We disagree, then, on the "meat." But at least you're now starting to come around that there was a unanimous ruling in here. We'll get you there soon!
If I ever found myself "coming around" to your diseased way of thinking I'd put a bullet in my brain.
In no way was I agreeing with you. In much the same way that two people in the midst of war, fighting on opposite sides, might agree that one of them should die; the libs and the cons agreed on minor details. Unfortunately, that's all the agreed on. As I said previously, in order for a case to be unanimous the people actually have to agree on all the important points. They did not agree on the merits of the case, the ability of the plaintiffs to obtain certification or the method by which they might obtain certification (based on a reading of the decision, they couldn't even really agree on the rules for certification in the first place).