RE: Another stab at women.

RE: Another stab at women. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 9:46:16 PM)
quote: It is up to the lawyers representing the lawsuit to be correct, obviously they werent, they couldnt even get it into court let alone win. You are about stupid, arent you. Already the new suits have been filed. The court you say the lawyers couldnt get the suit into... you know, the Supreme Court.. (do they even have one of those where you are from?) .. is making them jump through hoops by realigning the goal posts. What they thought would happen is that some of these women would disappear. What is happening is that those women re mad, and determined... and god help Sam.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 9:48:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: I was never asked. Ah well. If I asked and got an affirmative, I would have to constantly fight off the urge to figure out who I know at fema who could forcibly relocate you to new england. And around you, I feel a need for the illusion of gentlemanly behavior[:D] I do so adore such illusions. [;)]

SternSkipper -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 10:24:47 PM)
quote: I do so adore such illusions. And I in turn adore you

SternSkipper -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 10:32:20 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Incredible. You dont know the labor laws here but you are so damn sure you are correct. It is up to the lawyers representing the lawsuit to be correct, obviously they werent, they couldnt even get it into court let alone win. Oh pray tell... why?

tazzygirl -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 10:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: I do so adore such illusions. And I in turn adore you Awww... you are making me blush!

SternSkipper -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 10:41:05 PM)
quote: Awww... you are making me blush! Good[:D]

cyn32 -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 10:49:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl What they thought would happen is that some of these women would disappear. What is happening is that those women re mad, and determined... and god help Sam. How many years is this expected to take?

tazzygirl -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 11:10:38 PM)
No clue. Some are still working for Sam ( my word for Walmart).

SternSkipper -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 11:18:27 PM)
quote: How many years is this expected to take? 1) They have to start over and it took 9 or 10 years to get to this point 2) They plaintiffs will need probably another 7 million 3)Walmart is represented by Gibson, Dunn one of the west's largest law firms. And these guys are nasty. They won't even give Satan pro bono work.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 11:20:13 PM)
Any of these cases in Texas? That could be a problem for women there in light of their new law.

tj444 -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 11:29:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: It is up to the lawyers representing the lawsuit to be correct, obviously they werent, they couldnt even get it into court let alone win. You are about stupid, arent you. Already the new suits have been filed. The court you say the lawyers couldnt get the suit into... you know, the Supreme Court.. (do they even have one of those where you are from?) .. is making them jump through hoops by realigning the goal posts. What they thought would happen is that some of these women would disappear. What is happening is that those women re mad, and determined... and god help Sam. I never said they wouldnt file new suits, that was a given. The lawyers should have done it like that in the first place instead of wasting all that time and money. Maybe the lawyers will get that part right this time. Then if those are accepted they still have to win.

tj444 -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 11:46:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper 3)Walmart is represented by Gibson, Dunn one of the west's largest law firms. And these guys are nasty. They won't even give Satan pro bono work. If they are as good/nasty as that, then they wouldnt have taken the case to represent Walmart if they didnt think they would win.

errantgeek -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/22/2011 1:30:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 It is up to the lawyers representing the lawsuit to be correct, obviously they werent, they couldnt even get it into court let alone win. I love how you argue as if the facts were clear-cut, with an procedurally correct and incorrect side, that was without controversy. Hint: If the Supreme Court is involved, it's not. That's kind of their purpose as the highest appellate court of the land. If it were as clear-cut as you seem to purport, that would have been ferreted out at the district and federal court of appeals level, then denied cert. That's Con Law 101 level right there. Unless you want to suggest an alternate theory as to why the district court ruled solidly on behalf of Dukes, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel and later the entire Court ruling en banc concurred, then was granted cert largely out of the blue by SCOTUS.

tj444 -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/22/2011 7:14:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: errantgeek quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 It is up to the lawyers representing the lawsuit to be correct, obviously they werent, they couldnt even get it into court let alone win. I love how you argue as if the facts were clear-cut, with an procedurally correct and incorrect side, that was without controversy. Hint: If the Supreme Court is involved, it's not. That's kind of their purpose as the highest appellate court of the land. If it were as clear-cut as you seem to purport, that would have been ferreted out at the district and federal court of appeals level, then denied cert. That's Con Law 101 level right there. Unless you want to suggest an alternate theory as to why the district court ruled solidly on behalf of Dukes, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel and later the entire Court ruling en banc concurred, then was granted cert largely out of the blue by SCOTUS. You have to expect the other side is going to fight, and from what I have read about the lawyers representing Walmart, they fight hard so you have to think like they would and see what ways they will fight you to get a jump on them. Each side presents its arguements well in advance of appearing before the court. I tend to agree with the court, the way the lawsuit was done, the claims are all over the place and needed to be done in several suits. Maybe the lawyers for the women thought that was a possible outcome that but took the chance anyway. I expect they already had the new suits prepared even before the Supreme Court made its decision. In the end, its their lawyers that make more money.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/22/2011 9:19:08 AM)
quote: In the end, its their lawyers that make more money. What "more money". They get a percentage, thats it.

errantgeek -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/22/2011 10:31:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 You have to expect the other side is going to fight, and from what I have read about the lawyers representing Walmart, they fight hard so you have to think like they would and see what ways they will fight you to get a jump on them. Each side presents its arguements well in advance of appearing before the court. I tend to agree with the court, the way the lawsuit was done, the claims are all over the place and needed to be done in several suits. Maybe the lawyers for the women thought that was a possible outcome that but took the chance anyway. I expect they already had the new suits prepared even before the Supreme Court made its decision. In the end, its their lawyers that make more money. Any lawyer does that, it doesn't matter whether they're an ambulance chaser or senior partner for Wolfram and Hart. That's part of most law schools' 1L curriculum, 2L if they focus on procedure then substance, for crying out loud. All the same, perhaps the women and their counsel was overreaching by trying to integrate everyone into a single class. However, you must take into consideration the Court also ruled 5-4 that the women cannot form any class action based upon the allegations at hand. That in itself is a reversal of half a century of class action and workers' rights jurisprudence, and in my opinion an overbroad ruling and a real slap to the face for the American middle class.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/22/2011 10:36:24 AM)
I don't see this decision as so much "anti woman" as pro corporation, which is the direction the Court is taking. That's what happens when you have a conservative court. This is the same court that made a rather significant pro corporation decision regarding campaign financing and free speech, and has also consistently decided in favor of Monsanto's corporate interests, as opposed to farmers. Does that make the court anti-farmer? I don't think so.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/22/2011 10:37:52 AM)
I never said the Court was anit-women. The conservative movement is certainly presenting itself as such.

Moonhead -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/22/2011 12:56:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet I don't see this decision as so much "anti woman" as pro corporation, which is the direction the Court is taking. That's what happens when you have a conservative court. This is the same court that made a rather significant pro corporation decision regarding campaign financing and free speech, and has also consistently decided in favor of Monsanto's corporate interests, as opposed to farmers. Does that make the court anti-farmer? I don't think so. Isn't "pro corporation" pretty much "anti everything else" by definition?

EternalHoH -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/22/2011 1:47:04 PM)
I wouldn't say sue individually, but rather the workers at each store can band together and sue. That gets class status around the "individual store autonomy" issue. But what lawyer will find deep enough pockets to be picked on that small scope of action? The other day I received notification of a class action lawsuit regarding my old auto insurance company, something about Management Fee abuse and overcharges that came out of premiums paid in. They had me on file for about $8,000 worth of premiums I paid in for the many years I was insured by them, and at that rate, as a percentage of the $455 million proposed settlement, I would get back about $65. The lawyers were taking $90 million of that $455 million.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875