AWA320
Veteran
Do you even know what credibility is given to a dissenting opinion? It means that his opinion was considered, and it was determiined by the court to be WRONG. It is not a precedent, it is, in a way, an "anti" precedent.
You guys are setting yourselves up for failure by relying on a dissenting opinion as the basis for your argument.
Again, a "ripe" DFR is not necessarily a "winning" DFR. In fact, even the Ninth mentioned the "wide range of reasonableness" that unions are allowed in negotiating for their members. If Judge Wake had applied that standard, as he should have, the case would have had a totally different result in the first place.
Here you go butterball, read it all and get the clue before you go off on another tangent.
dissenting opinion is the opinion of a judge of a court of appeals, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which disagrees with the majority opinion. When more than one judge dissents, often one will write the dissenting opinion and the other judge(s) will join their names to it. Other times, different judges may write their own dissenting opinions, especially when they dissent for different reasons.
Over time as the social climate or law evolves, a dissent may eventually prevail. For example, for years now, many federal judges have taken a stand against mandatory minimum sentences. A majority haved called for outright abolition of mandatory sentencing. Some senior federal judges have refused to hear drug cases because of the long sentences they are bound by law to give defendants. Many federal judges are recording their dissent.
AWA320