Just another sign that the SCOTUS isn't yours and mine--

I'm a bit cheesed off at the recent SCOTUS decision over Wal-mart vs. Dukes (Dahlia Lithwick runs down all the details here.)  It just seems to me that the size of a class of persons to be considered for a class action lawsuit shouldn't be a consideration for whether that group can be considered a "class" per se for redress of an issue via the courts because it, well, discriminates against people who are part of a large group, or suing a large enough institution or corporation.  Also, I don't see how gender isn't sufficient to tie together people as belonging to a particular class if the court already recognizes something called: "gender discrimination."   It strikes me as sort of self-explanatory, that way.  Finally, I'm just up to here with the argument that because Wal-Mart had a written anti-discrimination policy re: women, the "statistical and anecdotal evidence" somehow doesn't matter.  But that's Scalia for you. Women: a class he doesn't necessarily recognize. Corporations, a class he just about always does--rather favorably.