Judge Rawlinson, joined by Judge Hug, says (in essence): "Five circuits have already decided this exact issue. Four of them have decided X. Only one of them has decided Y. We think that the four are more persuasive than the one, so that's the way we're going." Though says that in 15-plus single spaced pages.
Judge Rymer, by contrast, dissents, and essentially says: "Well, I like the one better, so that's the way I'm going." And does so quite concisely, in a way that I very much liked. Her dissent, in toto, reads as follows: "While I understand joining the parade of courts to decide this issue, I would reverse for the reasons stated in Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir. 2008), and in Judge Raggi’s well-reasoned dissent in Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71, 87 (2d Cir. 2006)."
I like that. No need to kill more trees or repeat the same arguments in your own words. If what you have to say has been said before well, a single sentence saying so will sometimes suffice. As here.
