"This action was consistent with a 4-year-old industry practice of trading six poorly dressed union workers for one well-put-together scab so as to cut down on visual blight," Specter's opinion explained. "Whereas the practice was not codified by city ordinance, there was considerable legal precedent to prospectively support the company's actions."
Legal scholars busily interpreted the cryptic legalese. Mr. Specter's office said Specter was not available to explain the opinion, and that even if he were available, "it wouldn't help."