politicartoons | Now THIS is a feminist issue

You, uh, realize that this was unanimous, right?

You, uh, realize that there's a dissent at the end signed by the 4 liberal justices which means it was not unanimous, right? Nice try though, you're always good for a laugh.

The dissent has nothing to do with the basics of the case, only on the scope of the case. All 9 agreed that the case lacked merit.

But nice try, though. Maybe next time.

Did you actually read the decision or did you just pick up the salient points from some right-wing blog? Because whatever "source" you relied on obviously didn't give you all the important information.

The "liberal" wing of the court concurred with Sections I and III of the decision and dissented in Section II. Section I is uncontroversial and just sets out the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties. Section III is concerned with one issue only, whether or not the plaintiffs can include claims for backpay in the action (they say that the plaintiffs can not).

Section II is the meat of the argument of the "conservative" wing of the court and is the part that the "liberals" disagreed with. It lays out the argument of Scalia that the class cannot be certified in any way.

The dissent, written by Justice Ginsburg and joined by the other "liberal" justices, disagrees with this notion that there is no way to certify a class in this case. They agree that the backpay claims are inappropriate under the rule claimed by the plaintiffs but argue that the case should be remanded for a decision on whether or not it can proceed under a different rule (which is quite different from the Section II decision delivered by Scalia which states that the class cannot be considered under any rule).

In fact, in her dissent Ginsburg states that "Absent an error of law or an abuse of discretion, an appellate tribunal has no warrant to upset the District Court's finding of commonality." This doesn't seem to jive with your assertion that she agreed with the "conservatives" on almost all of the decision since the "conservatives" entire argument is that they do have an ability to overturn the decision of the District Court.

The difference between the views of the "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the court is significant and important. The "conservatives" would throw the case out entirely, the "liberals" would send it back to consider a possible other avenue of certification. This is the difference between turning someone's car around and throwing a brick through the window sending it off a cliff.

If I could offer you advice for the future, don't just take the word of any blog (liberal or conservative), investigate for yourself and you will gain insight unavailable through any other avenue.

Did you actually read the decision or did you just pick up the salient points from some right-wing blog?

No, I read the decision. Did you? Or maybe some also-wrong left wing blog told you this story you decided to ramble on about.

The difference between the views of the "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the court is significant and important. The "conservatives" would throw the case out entirely, the "liberals" would send it back to consider a possible other avenue of certification. This is the difference between turning someone's car around and throwing a brick through the window sending it off a cliff.

Actually, the difference is that all 9 agreed that the case never should have been certified. That's the salient point. So you're still wrong. As we're used to at this point.

If I could offer you advice for the future, don't just take the word of any blog (liberal or conservative), investigate for yourself and you will gain insight unavailable through any other avenue.

And if I could offer you some advice, stop trying to correct me - it never ends well for you.

No, I read the decision. Did you? Or maybe some also-wrong left wing blog told you this story you decided to ramble on about.

I did read it, front to back, I even quoted from it so you could actually read part of it (if even a small part).

Actually, the difference is that all 9 agreed that the case never should have been certified. That's the salient point. So you're still wrong. As we're used to at this point.

Except that the liberals agreed that it shouldn't have been certified under rule 23(a)(2) but that it could very well be certified under the different requirements of rule 23(b)(3), while the conservatives threw the case out altogether and said there was no way to certify. That's a huge difference since the liberals would allow the plaintiffs to go on with some tweaking of their case and a revisiting of the case by the Court of Appeals or the District Court while the conservatives would not.

And if I could offer you some advice, stop trying to correct me - it never ends well for you.

That's funny, I think it's always ended well. Every single time we've disagreed (including this one) it's been because you read into something with your biases and reached an erroneous conclusion. I suggest you re-read the opinion, assuming you actually did read it and aren't just trying to save face by claiming you did (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf). Try to read it without your insane libertarian bias, and maybe you'll see the actual point of the dissent and how it fundamentally differs from the Decision of the Court.

I did read it, front to back, I even quoted from it so you could actually read part of it (if even a small part).

That's unfortunate. I can't figure out how you got it so wrong, then.

Except that the liberals agreed that it shouldn't have been certified under rule 23(a)(2) but that it could very well be certified under the different requirements of rule 23(b)(3), while the conservatives threw the case out altogether and said there was no way to certify. That's a huge difference since the liberals would allow the plaintiffs to go on with some tweaking of their case and a revisiting of the case by the Court of Appeals or the District Court while the conservatives would not.

Which means that all 9 agreed it shouldn't have been certified. Unanimously. Thanks!

That's funny, I think it's always ended well. Every single time we've disagreed (including this one) it's been because you read into something with your biases and reached an erroneous conclusion.

You mean read, looked for the facts, and came away with the facts. An understandable error.

Try to read it without your insane libertarian bias, and maybe you'll see the actual point of the dissent and how it fundamentally differs from the Decision of the Court.

I'm not the one who needs to read it again, I'm sorry to say. You seem to think there was some deep disagreement on the merits of the case - that's, unfortunately for you, incredibly, deeply wrong. But you won't ever come around on it, so I suppose we're at a stalemate yet again because you can't get the facts to fit your narrative.

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.

You still haven't told me what you think the purpose of the dissent was if this was a unanimous decision.

You never asked. The purpose of the dissent was more around the scope of the ruling - that all 9 felt the ruling shouldn't have been certified is ridiculously clear.

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.

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.

I think I figured it out. You realize that the justices can concur and dissent in part, right? Because your comments here seem to indicate that you don't understand that.

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.

Says the guy who went on a "corporate masters" rant earlier, sure.

You never asked.

Actually, I did:

Or, more simply for your simple mind, if the liberals agreed with the conservatives on everything, why did they bother filing a dissent?

It shouldn't be so easy to prove you full of shit.

The purpose of the dissent was more around the scope of the ruling - that all 9 felt the ruling shouldn't have been certified is ridiculously clear.

No, it's only clear in your mind because you have some sort of weird need for the libs on the court to agree with you. If they all felt the plaintiffs weren't entitled to the class-action, why did Ginsburg go out of her way to suggest an alternate approach to the plaintiffs?

I think I figured it out. You realize that the justices can concur and dissent in part, right? Because your comments here seem to indicate that you don't understand that.

I do realize that, I also realize that when 4 of the 9 justices disagree on the facts of the case it cannot be called unanimous. The majority decision was that the case was reversed and dismissed, the dissenting opinion was that the case should be remanded to the lower court to be re-decided using a different rule of class certification. Those are entirely different decisions, one takes all chance of victory away from the plaintiffs and one does not. The parts on which they agreed (Sections I and III) involved a small technicality, the part on which they disagreed (Section II) was the meat of the opinion and was what ultimately decided the fate of the plaintiffs. This really shouldn't be this hard for you.

Says the guy who went on a "corporate masters" rant earlier, sure.

When the conservative "justices" stop making it so obvious that they're bought and paid for by corporations, I'll stop talking about their corporate masters. Until then, the only way it could be more obvious would be if the CEO of WalMart popped up from under the bench in front of John Roberts halfway through the proceedings.

I know I promised I'd stop making you look bad by pointing out your stupidity but I just can't help myself. When I see people acting stupidly, I have to point out their stupidity. Blame it on my liberal belief that all people are inherently good and therefore inherently able to understand right from wrong. I may have to amend that belief based on my experience with you though.

Edited 2011-06-21 02:47 (UTC)

<>i>It shouldn't be so easy to prove you full of shit.

I apologise that I find it hard to tell the difference between you asking a serious question and you being an insufferable jackass, then.

No, it's only clear in your mind because you have some sort of weird need for the libs on the court to agree with you. If they all felt the plaintiffs weren't entitled to the class-action, why did Ginsburg go out of her way to suggest an alternate approach to the plaintiffs?

She didn't. She merely disagreed about the scope of the case in regards to Rule 23.

I do realize that, I also realize that when 4 of the 9 justices disagree on the facts of the case it cannot be called unanimous. The majority decision was that the case was reversed and dismissed, the dissenting opinion was that the case should be remanded to the lower court to be re-decided using a different rule of class certification. Those are entirely different decisions, one takes all chance of victory away from the plaintiffs and one does not. The parts on which they agreed (Sections I and III) involved a small technicality, the part on which they disagreed (Section II) was the meat of the opinion and was what ultimately decided the fate of the plaintiffs. This really shouldn't be this hard for you.

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!

When the conservative "justices" stop making it so obvious that they're bought and paid for by corporations, I'll stop talking about their corporate masters. Until then, the only way it could be more obvious would be if the CEO of WalMart popped up from under the bench in front of John Roberts halfway through the proceedings.

More lunacy.

I know I promised I'd stop making you look bad by pointing out your stupidity but I just can't help myself. When I see people acting stupidly, I have to point out their stupidity. Blame it on my liberal belief that all people are inherently good and therefore inherently able to understand right from wrong. I may have to amend that belief based on my experience with you though.

Then you really must invest in a mirror. The only person you're making look bad when you start in on this line with me is yourself.

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).

Or, more simply for your simple mind, if the liberals agreed with the conservatives on everything, why did they bother filing a dissent? Why did Ginsburg waste her precious time writing it, and why did Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan waste their times reading it and signing on to it, if they agreed with everything the conservatives said? What do you think is the difference between the Decision of the Court and the Dissenting Opinion?

Seeing as I never said they agreed on "everything," I'm not sure what you're asking me to defend. But, hey, my "simple mind," right?

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wal-mart-v-dukes/

Thr ruling was indeed 9-0, but 4 of the justices wrote dissents on all or part of the ruling. Those are in the record and can be used in future rulings on the same matter once the "class" better defines itself.

Though this is a perfectly armchair exercise, do you, Jeff, think there is any systematic discriminatory behavior on the part of Wal-Mart, today's ruling notwithstanding.

Thr ruling was indeed 9-0, but 4 of the justices wrote dissents on all or part of the ruling. Those are in the record and can be used in future rulings on the same matter once the "class" better defines itself.

They wrote dissents, yes, but the dissents weren't nearly that major to the broader point of the ruling. There's this sudden, yet predictable, urge to turn the dissents into something they aren't. I'm not surprised.

Though this is a perfectly armchair exercise, do you, Jeff, think there is any systematic discriminatory behavior on the part of Wal-Mart, today's ruling notwithstanding.

Systemic? No. Do I think that, in a company that employs millions, there may be individual cases? Absolutely. Putting aside my feelings about discrimination laws for the moment, it's entirely possible (maybe probable) that these women have a case on their own.

You stated that this was a "unanimous" decision, that means they agreed on everything. They did not agree on everything, therefore you're wrong. It's pretty simple, I don't see why you can't get it.

So 9-0 isn't unanimous. Gotcha.

Yes, 9-0 is unanimous. If this case was decided 9-0 I would agree it was unanimous. Unfortunately for your delicate little feelings, this case was decided 5-4 along partisan lines. The only thing that was even close to 9-0 was a small technicality. On the matter of whether the class could be certified, and on the matter of whether the plaintiffs had any sort of case, the decision was 5-4. Get over it, since when does it matter to you what the libs think when your side wins?

I mean, this is where you're 100% factually wrong. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf)

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

The basics of the case, Part I, and the addendum regarding back pay, Part III, were unanimous. Part II, which regarded questions of scope that did not impact the overall result of the ruling (as all 9 agreed that there should not have been certification) was the only part with a dissent, and thus Part II is still a majority opinion but not unanimous. So yes, 9-0, as in the key part of the case and the third part, is unanimous.

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.

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.

And all 9 agreed that the case shouldn't have been certified.

Meanwhile, I showed you the unanimous ruling, and you then claim it doesn't exist. Not that you had it to begin with, but there goes any high ground you had regarding the facts. I think we're done here, but I'm sure you'll get some snappy, sarcastic last word in anyway.

Meanwhile, I showed you the unanimous ruling, and you then claim it doesn't exist.

If you show me where in that paragraph it says "unanimous", I'll buy you a cake (the cake is a lie).

I think we're done here, but I'm sure you'll get some snappy, sarcastic last word in anyway.

My irony meter just exploded.

I accept your surrender and thank you for finally admitting you are wrong. Now go slink off to your room so you can have some quality alone time with your copy of Atlas Shrugged and write in your journal about how totally lame liberals are.

Hint: Here's what a unanimous decision looks like:

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. (Tapia v. United States)

Notice the use of the word "unanimous" in there and no mention of dissenting opinions.

Edited 2011-06-21 03:19 (UTC)

You really don't know when to give up, do you? When 9 justices agree on something, it means its unanimous. Quit digging.

(no subject)

udoswald.livejournal.com - 2011-06-21 14:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-06-21 14:14 (UTC) - Expand