<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/05/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/05/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup-2/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:37:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Russell Cook (@questionAGW)		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/05/supreme-court-constitutional-law-roundup-2/comment-page-1/#comment-217824</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Russell Cook (@questionAGW)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=37959#comment-217824</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On your #2 bulletpoint about the &quot;SCOTUS denies certiorari...&quot;, the Foley Hoag link is one where they conclude, &quot;It’s going to take a sea change – as it were – before plaintiffs win one of these cases.&quot;

My comment there (in case they don&#039;t approve it) is verbatim here:

It would have taken more than a sea change before either of these cases stood a chance of staying afloat. Each one contained a ticking time bomb: “Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a Fatal Flaw” http://ow.ly/gjm8O]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On your #2 bulletpoint about the &#8220;SCOTUS denies certiorari&#8230;&#8221;, the Foley Hoag link is one where they conclude, &#8220;It’s going to take a sea change – as it were – before plaintiffs win one of these cases.&#8221;</p>
<p>My comment there (in case they don&#8217;t approve it) is verbatim here:</p>
<p>It would have taken more than a sea change before either of these cases stood a chance of staying afloat. Each one contained a ticking time bomb: “Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a Fatal Flaw” <a href="http://ow.ly/gjm8O" rel="nofollow ugc">http://ow.ly/gjm8O</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
