Comments on: Daily Roundup 2008-12-31 https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/daily-roundup-2008-12-31/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:59:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: Paul https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/daily-roundup-2008-12-31/comment-page-1/#comment-37887 Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:59:43 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=8077#comment-37887 I’m not convinced the Spears thing is completely frivolous. I don’t know that it’s worth money, but I think that it’s plainly obvious that anything they thought they were saving Spears from would have been inflicted on the other gal.

]]> By: Bob Neal https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/daily-roundup-2008-12-31/comment-page-1/#comment-37884 Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:25:57 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=8077#comment-37884 SSFC, you did a fine, fine job (from a fellow NC defense lawyer)!

]]> By: PatW https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/daily-roundup-2008-12-31/comment-page-1/#comment-37878 Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:10:25 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=8077#comment-37878 Yes, that deserves a misconduct complaint filed at the PD, but not a demand for money.

]]> By: Ken https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/daily-roundup-2008-12-31/comment-page-1/#comment-37877 Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:58:42 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=8077#comment-37877 Pat, I agree it’s frivolous to the extent she probably didn’t suffer damages. But if a cop used me as bait to assist the easy departure of some insipid celeb, I’d be on the warpath for that cop’s job.

]]> By: PatW https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/daily-roundup-2008-12-31/comment-page-1/#comment-37876 Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:53:40 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=8077#comment-37876 That Spears thing may be the most frivolous money grab I have ever heard of.

]]> By: Ken https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/daily-roundup-2008-12-31/comment-page-1/#comment-37871 Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:32:27 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=8077#comment-37871 With respect to the New Jersey case, it seems as if the ministry’s arguments would have applied with equal force if they had decided to open an Arby’s franchise and then refuse to sell food to Catholics or something. Perhaps an argument can be made that the entirety of anti-discrimination law violates First Amendment freedoms. But I don’t think this is a credible tipping point.

Religion Clause has links to both NJCRD decisions issued yesterday. In the second one, NJCRD found no probable cause to proceed on a complaint by another same-sex couple against the ministry on the grounds that the ministry, at that point, had decided to cease offering the pavilion as a public accommodation.

]]>